And with Northern monies as well. You forget, or ignore, that the Northern consumer paid exactly the same price as the Southern consumer did.
But I asked before and I'll ask again. What was it that the South was importing in such vast quantities that not only did they account for 75% of all imports but they also lined the pockets of Northern manufacturers?
...or that southerners were not paying the duties (due to where the goods were shipped)...
Isn't that a good indicator? If the South consumed three quarters or more of all imports then wouldn't it make sense to send those goods to Southern ports where they would be closer to their consumers? According to articles the North consumed less than 25% of all imports yet based on tariff collections over 90% of all imports were landed in Northern ports. Why?
Having said that, it would certainly appear to a fairminded observer to be something to the notion that Northern economic warfare against the south did in fact occur at least with some degree of frequency and intensity over the decades leading up to the northern push in the late 1850's for the odious Morrill tariff, and certainly the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 bore it's name for a reason.
It gives perhaps added meaning to the words; " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."; does it not?