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.
That's a great set of natural and acquired advantages. As a socialist, you naturally resent the city's success and view it all as illegitimate. You'd rather shake things up and you assume that somebody else would come up on top once you've displaced those who were successful, but it wouldn't work. New York businessmen were good at what they did, good enough for wealthy people in other parts of the country to entrust them with their money.
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.
I assume you are talking about cotton planters here, though you don't make that clear. There was no "money drain." Plantation owners used money to buy things they wanted or needed that were produced elsewhere. They also clearly found it convenient to keep sums with bankers in New Orleans or Charleston or New York or London and to work with brokers and factors in those cities.
The whole cotton business was illegitimate or immoral by today's standards but there was nothing illegitimate in planters wanting to do business with those who lived outside the cotton-growing regions. They weren't obligated to do for themselves what others had more experience doing. And yet you find the fact that some areas specialize in agriculture and others in commerce an affront to your socialist sensibilities.
No prosecutions of Hillary Clinton coming from SDNY, but they are all over the effort to try to get a prosecution against Trump and his associates like Michael Cohen.
SDNY. South District, New York.
Doing the work of the deep state "establishment." Trying to destroy Trump before he can drain the swamp.
But after declaring secession, Confederates had no "real complaint" to address, and took no serious notice of any efforts in Congress to "compromise" them back into the Union.
At that point, they simply weren't going to return, period.
What about before secession?
There was no "before secession" except in this sense: leading up to the November 6, 1860 election, Deep South Fire Eaters announced, in effect: if "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans are elected, the South will secede.
That's it!
They didn't say: "we want a new amendment protecting slavery, or we'll secede."
They didn't say: "we want lower tariffs, or we'll secede".
They didn't say: "we want more Federal spending in the South, or we'll secede."
And certainly they didn't say: "we want more industry & shipping in the South, or we'll secede", none of it!
None of the nonsense reasons they concocted after the fact were revealed in the fall of 1860, only the one threat: "Ape" Lincoln will drive the South to secede.
And when the first secession states wrote up their "reasons for secession", it was the perceived threat to slavery which drove their reasons.
All that other stuff & nonsense came later, some of it much later.