This is correct. It was all about the money and who was going to control it.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
You focused on the wrong laws. They wanted to abolish the "Navigation act of 1817" that forced them to use North Eastern Shipping monopolies and made it illegal in some cases and prohibitively expensive in others to use foreign ships. They wanted import tariffs to be low so that European Ships would have a profit advantage to trade at Southern ports instead of sending the bulk of their commerce to New York.
They wanted to get out from under laws that had the effect of transferring 60 million of their dollars to the North Monopolized/Government Subsidized industries every year.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Not because of moral objections I assure you. The coalition of Northern states had at that time control of congress. If slavery expanded to the territories, those states would likely vote as a coalition with the other slave states, and thereby deprive the North Eastern power barons of their control of Washington.
The Issue of who would control Washington and therefore Government power hinged upon whether the states would vote with the Northern Coalition or the Southern one, and for that reason the Northern power brokers absolutely did not want Slavery to expand to the territories.
The War was about Money and Power, and who would control it.
What you say bears only the loosest relationship to reality, yet you keep on repeating, and repeating, and repeating it.
You've made up your mind in advance and don't let facts ever change it.
The Southern-dominated Democratic Party had controlled the Congress for most of the years 1800-1860.
They were the true "power barons" in Washington.
Democrats lost control of the House for brief periods, but retained the Senate from 1845 up to 1861 and the withdrawal of Southern senators.
Democrats and Southerners also predominated or were overrepresented in the executive and judicial branches before the Civil War.
More to the point, though. Slavery would undercut the position and rights of free labor and small farmers in the territories.
That was reason enough for opposing it in the eyes of many Northerners.
Northern "power barons" didn't really care. They could always cut a deal with the slave owning "power barons" of the South.
Farmers and workingmen knew they'd lose out if slavery were imposed on their states or on the territories.
You continue to make this crap up as you go along, banking on the hope that if you sound authoritative then nobody will question you. Well it doesn't work.
Let's see what someone from the period had to say about who controlled government. I would think Alexander Stephens knew what he was talking about:
"But, again, gentlemen, what have we to gain by this proposed change of our relation to the general government? We have always had the control of it, and can yet, if we remain in it, and are as united as we have been. We have had a majority of the Presidents chosen from the South; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen from the North. We have had sixty years of Southern Presidents to their twenty-four, thus controlling the Executive department. So of the judges of the Supreme Court, we have had eighteen from the South, and but eleven from the North; although nearly four-fifths of the judicial business has arisen in the Free States, yet a majority of the Court has always been from the South. This we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interests in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro tern.) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of the Representatives, from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country. Nor have we had less control in every other department of the general government. Attorneys, Generals we have had fourteen, while the North have had but five. Foreign ministers we have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four. While three-fourths of the business which demands diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the Free States, from their greater commercial interests, yet we have had the principal embassies, so as to secure the world markets for our cotton, tobacco and sugar on the best possible terms. We have had a vast majority of the higher offices of both army and navy, while a larger proportion of the soldiers and sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of Clerks, Auditors and Comptrollers filling the Executive department; the records show for the last fifty years, that of the three thousand thus employed, we have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we have but one-third of the white population of the Republic.' Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; it is that of revenue, or means of supporting government. From official documents, we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected for the support of government has uniformly been raised from the North." - Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia Secession Convention, January 1861