I would recommend States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald for all people who want to participate in threads about federalism, nullification and secession. McDonald lays it all out in terms laymen can understand. I always find myself referring back to the book for examples.
Dorr was part of a group that wanted things the way they wanted things. They were frustrated because they repeatedly encountered a government that wasn’t persuaded by their proposal. So they resorted to illegally attempting to seat their own government.
If I were Tyler I would have supported the state as well. On this he said: “If resistance is made to the execution of the laws of Rhode-Island, by such force as the civil peace shall be unable to overcome, it will be the duty of this Government to enforce the constitutional guarantee — a guarantee given and adopted mutually by all the original States.”
Dorr was convicted for his complicity in the insurrection (although later had his sentence commuted).
Well, let's let everyone know what was really going on here. Rhode Island law was that only landowners could vote, which was fine when almost everyone owned land, but as industrialization began, you ended up with a huge population that was disenfranchised. Not surprisingly, the landowning voters rather liked their system and refused to change it. Dorr then declared his own constitutional convention, created a new constitution and announced themselves to be the new government of the state. When the existing state government didn't simply roll over for them, they resorted to armed force, attempted to seize an arsenal and failing. Dorr went on the run.
What Tyler did was refuse to intervene on either side, despite the existing government's call for federal troops. You, apparently, are of the opinion that the federal government should have stepped in, overthrown the state constitution and government that had been in place since the days of the Founders, and installed a different government.