You are simply incorrect. For a while the south held par in the senate due to the admission of new states but they quickly lost the house. Name me any single tariff bill from 1820 to 1861 and I will show you a vote where the southern members voted against protection.
Tariffs are placed on IMPORTS at any rate so your bilge is utterly irrelevent.
Tariffs effect all matters of trade. To suggest otherwise, as you have now done twice, indicates that you are both utterly ignorant and obstinate about clinging to that ignorance.
Per capita evaluations of the South's industrial prowess of course are beside the point particularly when comparing regions of lower population to regions of higher population.
Your ignorance is showing yet again. The very reason of taking per capita measurements instead of raw numbers is to account for the fact that population differences in multiple regions can and will skew them in any attempt to compare their differences! By converting the figures to per capita you REMOVE the skew of population, not add it!
One of the biggest factors in the paired admission of states was that it prevented the Senate from falling to Northern control.
Tariffs do not effect exports uniformly since they provide protection for some industries. Those can have the terms of trade tilted in their favor. Others have their exports reduced. But there is not a universal impact on all sectors contrary to your belief.
Since we were speaking about comparisions of power available the per capita evaluation becomes irrelevent. Switzerland may have as high a per capita income as the US but when you want to evaluate potential military power it becomes irreleven just as trying to compare per capita mileage leads you to no understanding or the 180 degree wrong conclusion. Georgia may have had as many miles per capita as NY but no one would conclude that gave it any particular advantage. Normalization of statistics does not clarify all things.