The most important question is, what recourse does a state have within the Constitution, to interpose on an issue it is convinced violates egregiously it's constitutional protection? How else might a state handle the problem and preserve the Union? That question was simply ignored by the South.
The most important question is, what recourse does a state have within the Constitution, to interpose on an issue it is convinced violates egregiously it's constitutional protection?
According to you, there is no recourse. The Constitution means only what the Supreme Court says it means.
How else might a state handle the problem and preserve the Union?
If the Union becomes tyrannical in nature, why should it be preserved at all? That's like asking the colonists, "How else might you handle the problem and preserve the empire?"
Wrong. The issue had been going on for decades, with the South taking concillatory positions on tariffs, yankee protectionism and other issues.
Yankees ratified the Constitution and failed to abide by it. The US Supreme Court had decided 7-2 that the South's position was the correct one. Despite that, the yankees continued to foment discord and attempted to incite insurrection, passed blatantly unconstitutional laws negating the return of escaped fugitives, and attempted to bar ALL blacks from common territories. Then they demanded more in tribute - even higher tariffs, and attempts to give away western lands instead of selling them for revenue.
The Confederacy took the only option left open to them. They took the same option that the framers took - secession.