Leaving aside the legitimacy of plantation wealth for a minute, that was also something that could be said of New York merchants and bankers back then.
They made their money legally. They benefited from slavery but weren't anywhere near as guilty as the planters or slave traders, yet you continually rant against them and advocate what is a major change in the laws -- breaking up the country -- in order to take money away from them.
Inconsistent much?
It was legal because their larger representation voted to make it legal. It doesn't mean that the people who were having to pay that money liked it and wanted it to continue.
They benefited from slavery but weren't anywhere near as guilty as the planters or slave traders, yet you continually rant against them and advocate what is a major change in the laws -- breaking up the country -- in order to take money away from them.
No other avenue of redress was available to them. Offering them protection for slavery would do nothing about the money drain from the South to the North. It's why they didn't care about the Corwin Amendment. It wouldn't address their real complaint.