Tariffs did not directly affect regions differently.
The effects were distributed by occupation, not region.
North and South, most people were farmers at the time. An Iowa corn farmer was affected pretty much the same as an Alabama planter by tariffs.
Those who benefited most from protective tariffs were the manufacturers and workers in specific industries. Two of the heaviest protective tariffs, BTW, were on hemp and sugar, both growth primarily with slave labor.
But you still haven’t answered a couple of questions I posed above.
Are you aware that tariffs in 1860 were the lowest they’d been in decades?
Let’s assume tariffs did indeed fall disproportionately on the southern economy. Would getting out from under them justify secession and the distinct chance of war?
Finally, let’s assume secession went over peacefully. How do you think southerners were going to pay for their new government and its armed forces? Would they be content permanently to have necessary military supplies be subject to interruption by blockade, or would they have introduced something with the effect if not the name of protective tariffs to encourage production of essential military supplies domestically?
I cannot address this point intelligently because I have no intimate knowledge of the types and distribution of these tariffs. Being the lowest is not necessarily the most salient factor as regards tariffs. I think a lot of objection regarding tariffs is entirely related to whose ox is getting gored.
They may be low overall, but they might specifically target specific businesses or industries which were not previously targeted. For example, a high tariff on Dandelion wine would not have near the impact as a low tariff on imported oil.
Again, I don't know enough of the details to voice an intelligent opinion on the specifics.
Let’s assume tariffs did indeed fall disproportionately on the southern economy. Would getting out from under them justify secession and the distinct chance of war?
Well, let me consult the instruction manual.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Since it doesn't appear to violate the rules, I would have to say "Yeah." People can leave a government even for wrong headed ideas.
Finally, let’s assume secession went over peacefully. How do you think southerners were going to pay for their new government and its armed forces?
That they may have bitten off more than they can financially chew is their own fault, and perhaps if they cannot afford their new fangled independence, they might like to try getting readmitted to the Union or something, but their bad planning does not obviate their right to do something stupid.
Would they be content permanently to have necessary military supplies be subject to interruption by blockade, or would they have introduced something with the effect if not the name of protective tariffs to encourage production of essential military supplies domestically?
I have no idea, and I'm not even certain I grasp the question sufficiently to answer it.