That seems unlikely.

In 1859 total federal revenue was $61.1 million from all sources. Of this $38.8 million came from tariffs collected in the port of New York. In other words New York alone accounted for 64% of all federal revenues. All other ports combined added another 22% or so, with the remaining 14% from all other sources combined. The bulk of "other sources" was $8.5 million generated by the postal service.

It looks to me that your blog post seems to be assigning all tariff income to the South, despite the fact that the vast majority of it came from New York. I could do further analysis if you want, but the claim seems to be entirely spurious.

I pulled the federal budget numbers from Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the US, Colonial Times to 1970 published by the US Census.

I pulled the New York Port number from Annual Report of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Volume 2

Oh wow, that blogpost has a lot of crazy and false claims. With regards to your primary question about tariff revenues, the claim that the South paid 85% is wildly inaccurate. For instance, imports through the Port of New York alone were the source of ~73% of tariff revenues in the fiscal year ending in mid-1860. Andy Hall at the Dead Confederates blog made a very helpful visual of tariff revenues by port for the previous fiscal year that demonstrates how import duties on trade through Northern ports were the lions share of tariff revenue (which was the source of vast majority of federal government revenue at the time). If you want, you can check out a There were no export tariffs in antebellum America because the Constitution forbids them (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5). Now the revenue figures are for which port the goods are imported through and not their ultimate destination. But there is no evidence that imports arriving in Northern ports ultimately ended up in the South at wildly disproportionate rates.

On to debunking some of the other claims in that blogpost:

Claim #1: "Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution."

After Fort Sumter, Lincoln did, in fact, summoned Congess for a special session that would begin on July 4, 1861.

Claim #2 "Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution."

When Congress passed the Militia Act of 1795, it gave the president clear authority to raise an army on a temporary basis:

"Whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress."

Claim #3: "suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did."

Lincoln did allow the military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution provides that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The Civil War was clearly a rebellion. The Constitution does not say who may suspend the writ, though the clause is located in a section of Article One of the Constitution that limits Congressional power. Here is Lincoln's justification of why he had the power to suspend the writ in his message to that special session of Congress "But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion." Worth noting that in 1863 Congress retroactively authorized the President to ignore writs of habeas corpus and that the Confederacy also suspended habeas corpus.

Claim #4 "Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive."

During the Civil War, the Supreme Court never ruled on the legality of the suspension of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Roger Taney, did issue a writ of habeas corpus for a Maryland militiaman accused of destroying bridges and imprisoned in Ft. McHenry. Taney argued that only Congress could suspend the writ, but he was ignored by Lincoln and the military who felt, as above, that the existence of a rebellion was cause to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Claim #5 "When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution."

Whether Lincoln ever drafted an arrest warrant for Taney is in doubt.

Claim #6 "Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution." In July 1861, Congress passed the Non-Intercourse Act of 1861 which authorized Lincoln to prohibit trade with ports under the control of then Confederacy. Lincoln had prohibited trade with those ports after Fort Sumter, three months prior. In the Prize Cases (1863), the Supreme Court held that Lincoln had the power to recognize the existence of a civil war and impose a blockade.

Claims #7-9 "Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses."

"Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned."

Lincoln did close a number of newspapers (I am unsure of the amount) and gets a lot of criticism for this. There were trials, albeit military trials, held. Most of the publishers, editors, etc that were tried were given lesser punishments such as banishment from a state rather than imprisonment for the duration of the war. In general, newspapers were not shutdown just for criticizing the war but for encouraging draft resistance, desertion, or secession. Again there was no Supreme Court order forbidding the suspension of habeas corpus.

Claim #10 "Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)"

The 15-20k figure of citizens arrested by the military is broadly accurate but most of them were not arrested for criticizing the war and/or the Lincoln administration. The real reasons include things like being suspected of aiding the Confederacy. Most imprisonments resulting from these arrests were of brief duration.

Claim #11 "Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution."

In mid-September, 1861 suspected pro-secession Maryland legislators were prevented from traveling and some were arrested to ensure a Unionist majority.

Claim #12 "Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution."

Although little known, there was a competing pro-Union government of Virginia called the Restored Government of Virginia during the war. It controlled West Virginia and parts of Northern Virginia near D.C.. but claimed to represent the whole state and importantly was recognized by Congress as the government of Virginia. The Restored Government consented to, and Congress approved the creation of West Virginia. West Virginia's statehood was not the result of a unilateral action by Lincoln.

Claim #13 "Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North."

The war was not waged for the South's revenue, but instead was for the preservation of the Union. Lincoln, and most others, felt that there was no right of secession. They acknowledged that there was the right of revolution but that losing an election was not just cause for disunion.

Additional Sources:

Neely, Mark E Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Neff, Stephen C. Justice in blue and gray: a legal history of the Civil War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

Just a note: tariffs refer to fees placed on imported goods, not those being exported. Tariffs on naturally cheaper British manufactured items made American industry more competitive. However, it also made life more expensive for people who had little industry and needed to import most of the necessities of life. This is what southern leaders were complaining about - and they did complain about it, with Stephens reserving a paragraph for it in his Cornerstone Speech.