[Sherman Logan]

As Jefferson said, when such a time comes when "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", prudence "requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation".

Which they did. Unfortunately for your case, the causes they declared were primarily associated with the protection of slavery.

I believe only one or two states (could be more, haven't counted recently) listed the tariff as a primary cause, the favorite argument of those who proclaim slavery had "nothing" to do with secession.

Why seceding and precipitating a war over a still very low level of taxation is morally superior to seceding over the protection of slavery is quite beyond me. But that's a common argument.

[phi11yguy19]

the causes they declared were primarily associated with the protection of slavery

which is equivalent to saying "the causes were primarily associated with the protection of (institutions not delegated to the jurisdiction of the common government, but reserved to the states)

of course there were constitutional means to delegate control of slavery to the federal government, but the same conflicting interests present in 1789 remained conflicting and never allowed that to happen. so one side figured a way to permanently tip the balance so that once they gained enough representation via a monopoly on expansion, they could impose their states' rules on the others. the others realized it was now a "union" only in name, and exercised their right to leave. what part about that is "beyond you"?

[central_va]

Any state can secede for any reason at any time. Without that implied secession overhanging FedGov™, we have centralized Tyranny. Which is what we find ourselves in now.

You or I have no say whether a state secedes or not unless we live in that particular state(s). It's called a republic, learn it, live it , love it.