This story appears to be apocryphal.
But you forgot this:
"South Carolina...cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war. At the close of that war we can tell with certainty whether she is in or out of the Union. While this government endures there can be no disunion...
If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 4th of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed-- the President has no discretionary power on the subject -- his duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not.
Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
Tariffs were a piddling amount -- less than $2 per year per person in the USA. And 95% of -that- amount was collected in northern ports. Two customs houses in the south LOST money -- it cost more to operate them than they collected.
But the collection of tariffs -was- a sign of federal power, and one that President Lincoln was not willing to relinquish.
Walt
1862 imports were down by over 105 Million from 1860 levels - despite the North having to import much of what it previously purchased from the South.
Now before you argue otherwise, if the North imported little - then it paid little in tariffs. If it did import from England/France etc to make up for lost purchases from the South - then then imports of the South (with their corresponding tariff revenues) would have been much more than 105 Million, possibly double. And finally, if the South imported little, then the revenues would not have been vital, and imports would not have fallen, but instead would have been higher than 1860 levels.
And 95% of -that- amount was collected in northern ports. Two customs houses in the south LOST money -- it cost more to operate them than they collected.
By your reasoning, no interior state paid tariffs. Regarding the reason for any differences in amounts, the harbours of the South were shallower than the Northern ports. After all, the North had huge fleets of ships, the South virtually none. And so what if the North paid more in tariffs, as a manufacturing economy, their costs would be passed on to the consumers - meaning much of the South. It's the loss of tariff revenue, coupled with a loss of shipping revenue, the higher costs of raw materials, and loss of much of it's customer base that fueled Lincoln's desires for union the revenues.
This story appears to be apocryphal.
As noted, it was published in the Baltimore Sun, and read by [probably] millions. Can you provide any evidence that Lincoln refuted the article in question?
Come now, Walt. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the only cost of a protectionist tariff, or even the majority of that cost, is felt in the government revenue collection numbers. Aside from being a fraudulent argument, such an assertion is economic idiocy.
The real cost of any protectionist tariff is felt in what it does to the price markets and consumption quantities in comparison to the pre-tariff condition. New tariff laws (kinda like the Morrill one) take away a huge segment of the consumer surplus and disperse it elsewhere. Part of that dispersement is transfered into the producer surplus (that means it goes to the select few beneficiaries in the protected industry). Another small part of it goes into the government as revenue, where it is spent with great losses in opportunity due to government's comparative inefficiency. The remainder is consumed in dead weight losses - it is lost to the economy as a whole, not to be recovered.
The net change of country's welfare following a protectionist tariff can be accordingly declared negative. Of the losses in consumer surplus caused by the tariff, only part is incompletely recovered by shifts to the producer and government. The remainder is lost meaning a net loss for the country itself, and that loss is hardest felt by those who (a) lose more of the benefits of having the previous consumer surplus to higher prices and (b) depend upon trade for their livlihoods. In the case of the Morrill tariff, that was the south. Northern industries benefitted from the partial transfer of consumer surplus they recieved. The south by comparison lost in prices and then again in declining trade, as they accounted for some 75% or so of the nation's exports in 1860.