No, only in the case of an unjust Union, where a long list of grievances is not lawfully addressed, thus making separation "necessary".
Since no such conditions existed in November 1860, any "right to leave" was still superseded by obligations accepted with the US Constitution of 1787.
Yes, we all "get" that you are here to insist on an unlimited "right of separation", but that's just nonsense.
It did not exist in 1776 for our Founders, nor in 1787 with the new Constitution, nor in November 1860 in the US Deep South.
The list of grievances were a courtesy, not a requirement to exercise the right. The right is non conditional. People can leave for whatever reason suits them.
Listen to you. Apply your ideas to individual people. Do you think someone has to provide a reason for why they no longer wish to be with someone? That they can't break off a relationship unless they have a reason that meets the approval of the person with whom they are breaking up?
Since no such conditions existed in November 1860, any "right to leave" was still superseded by obligations accepted with the US Constitution of 1787.
The exercise of a natural right is not contingent upon what a majority of delegates wrote, nor what a majority of legislature's passed. These are acts of man. They hold no weight against natural rights.
The US constitution is no more binding on the states than was English law (which forbade separation) binding on the colonies.
You would think that the principles upon which one's own nation is founded would be recognizable to a government four score and seven years later.