Sure he did. It's a matter of economic law that, if goods can't get into New York due to a trade barrier but can get into Charleston where no barrier exists, the shippers will go to Charleston as a way to access the North American continent.
It would seem to be a matter of economic law that you serve your best customer in the most cost effective manner possible. So if your best customer is the southern consumer then it makes no sense to send them their goods via New York or Boston where all you are doing is adding to their costs. It would seem that economic law would mandate that those goods would go to Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans. Yet that wasn't done. Didn't they understand economic law in those days?
And if you send those goods to Charleston to avoid the tariff in New York then what do you do with them? What good will those goods to the customers up North sitting in Charleston? How will Charleston be a way of accessing the North American continent? Seems to me that the stuff will just sit there and rot, which seems to me to be a violation of economic law, too. Because if you're suggesting that those goods will be sent to Northern states then that makes no sense at all. Why ship goods to Charleston, pay the confederate tariff, tranship them to the North, and pay the Northern tariff as well plus all those additional shipping costs? That makes no sense at all.