"Five million bales of cotton, each bale worth fifty dollars at least - fifty-four dollars was the average price of cotton last year - give us an export of $250,000,000 per annum, counting not rice, or tobacco, or any other article of produce. Two hundred and fifty million exports will bring into our own borders - not through Boston and New York and Philadelphia, but through our own ports - $250,000,000 of imports; and forty per cent upon that puts into our treasury$100,000,000. Twenty per cent gives us $50,000,000. What tariff we shall adopt, as a war tariff, I expect to discuss in a few months, and in another Chamber."
Whose border is he referring to? Whose ports? Certainly not the United States. He is obviously referring to an independent south. The south's cotton. The south's ports. When he says "What tariff we shall adopt, as a war tariff..." he is referring to the south, not the North. Otherwise why would he expect to discuss it in another chamber in a few months time?
Having established the shining future for the south, Wigfall goes on to predict the grim future for the North. The south is the strong one because it isn't numbers that matters, it's money. The almighty dollar that the south has in abundance because of her cotton. The North will be nothing because of the loss of the cotton producing states. The North will be forced do direct taxation, bankrupting her capitalists while the South sits on her 40% tariff and watches the money roll in. That's what he is saying. Nowhere does Wigfall give any reason for the southern acts of rebellion to come. His speech is an in-your-face diatribe against the North, not a list of reasons why the south will rebel. Those reasons came a month later in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession and the speeches of the southern secession commissioners. And all those say that it was defense of slavery that was by far the single most important reason for the southern rebellion.
And I'm sorry, but my reading of its plain text meaning seems to be sound. You on the other hand previously maintained that when Wigfall directed his comments about money to persons he addressed as "you" and "your," he was really addressing those comments to himself and the South. It is truly sad that you go to such lengths to deny that the obvious recipient of that passage was yankeeland.
Look at the paragraph prior to the one you quote:
That's nice and all, and throughout it he refers to "us," "our," and "we" - a clear reference to the South. That is NOT the case in the following paragraph, which is at issue here. He states "you" and "your" in address to the North. This is obvious to any intelligent and mentally capable individual, though for some reason you have great trouble with it. Why is that?