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?