I have suggested that the Constitution as it existed in 1860 nowhere prohibited State secession (obviously, many disagree ;^). Assuming for the sake of argument that I am correct (let's argue that point elsewhere, on a future occassion), an important question arises:
Is motivation relevant to federal approval or disapproval, of an individual's (or State's) exercise of a constitutional right?
For example, if you choose to vote, does the reason matter? If a State lawfully imposes taxes, does the reason matter?
In America today, it seems to be progressives (more often than conservatives) who attempt to judge the legality of actions based on their impression(s) of motivation. If they think something should be done "for the children", for example, then just about anything goes. But if they decide you're a "racist", or "homophobe" (or MAGA-hat-wearing-deplorable ;^), then say goodbye to your 1st Amendment (and other) rights - nothing you say or do is acceptable to them (even apologies, as we've seen on those occassions when various RINOs attempted it).
"A taste of things to come" indeed...
Someone who ended up agreeing with that position was a Union combat officer named Charles Francis Adams Jr.
Who in addition to being a soldier and a scholar was also the grandson and g-grandson of the two Presidents from Massachusetts. You can find his reasoning in his essay/speech "Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?"
If a person or a people have a right to do something, why they chose to do it is up to them. If there are conditions on the exercise of a right, it isn't a right, it is an indulgence from their rulers.