That's hardly an answer. A more correct analogy would be how can you say the tax was abusive when you paid so much less than everyone else with the same income?
Which also applies to the income tax argument, but then we're wandering off topic by pursuing it.
Can a tax, no matter how disproportionately applied, be abusive? I say yes. To think that a tax is by definition not abusive because others pay more than you is a strange stance. It's like saying the prison guards beat me the least.
Is it invalid for the South to complain about abuses of the North as well? What about our complaints about abuses of the Iraqis by SH & Co, should we have just sat back because we weren't being tortured?
Moral absolutes and disputes aren't always dependent on one's current situation, in fact rarely so. Jefferson and Madison did not wait for the president to excersize his newfound powers prior to passing the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, no?