That is unrealistic. The Southern states were barely able to hold back such measures, but they realized that inevitably it was futile.
Go read the articles of secession by the Southern states. They do not refer to tariffs but repeatedly refer to the protection of slavery as the reason for secession.
3 or 4 do. But they also include economic arguments, and most of the states didn't even issue such documents.
It has become a propaganda trick to claim that the 3 or 4 (depending on how you count it) that specifically mention slavery as a reason for secession, speak for all 11 states, most of which don't cite it as justification.
"Read the documents" these people put out, as if they would just come out and tell the North "We are taking our money back out of your pockets!"
Most people don't want to attract attention to the fact they would be putting a serious hurt on people by stopping the money flow. Better to misdirect them with some "Look Squirrel!!!"
With some justification, slaveholders feared that abolitionist agitations would inspire slaves to flee North or to revolt.
They really were worried about slave revolts. John Brown probably did a lot to convince people secession was necessary.
With time, a sense of realism, and flexibility, the South could have defused the time bomb of slavery by easing conditions and working toward emancipation. Sadly, the slaveholder class chose secession, thinking that it would be easy to found a new nation.
Long before John Brown, the Denmark Vesey conspiracy and Nat Turner's rebellion demonstrated that violent slave revolts were a tangible risk. In addition, poisoning and violent assaults by slaves were feared by the South's slaveholders. John Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry hit a raw nerve.