I don't see how I could make this any clearer. The position that you are arguing - that a tarrif (or anything for that matter) - can't be proclaimed abusive by those who it affects the least is a non-starter, isn't it?
It seems I've provided ample corralaries to disprove this, but you keep on. Let's look at your example further.
Example 1:
The congress passes a law that those with incomes above $30K have to pay 95% tax, while those under the limit pay only 94% tax. According to the Non-Seq theory, the 94% rate is, by definition, not abusive.
Example 2:
Let's say that our no-longer-constitutionally-bound government decides that, instead of socialist ("progressive") distribution of taxation, it is going to choose something completely random and, thus, more "fair." It goes on to implement a law that anyone who's last name that begins with "L" is going to pay 95% income tax for 2004, with others paying 5%. Each year thereafter, a letter will be drawn out of a 'lucky lotto' machine to choose which last-name-letter gets to pay 95% while the rest pay 5%.
So, by your "logic," any action by those who have a last name beginning with "M" is completely unjustified.
I never said that you couldn't proclaim it abusive. You can proclaim anything abusive for any reason you want. I have said that since the south was paying a disproportionately small amount of the tariff then their claim of abuse does not make sense to me and the idea that it could be the primary reason for the southern rebellion is hard for me to swallow.