No, the South's reason for leaving is simply what the ex post facto rationalizers want to talk about. They want to get the History out of sequence because it makes what they did look better.
The South's reasons for leaving are immaterial to the larger point. Did they have a right to leave?
“For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property”
“A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”
they then go on to lay out how the North’s ability to win control of both the legislature and the executive branch has them fearing anti-slavery will prevail and pointing out that the Constitution forces the Northern States and federal government to enforce slavery in their territory and return fleeing slaves to the state of origin”
That seems to be what Chuck Baldwin wanted to talk about, also the poster I was answering.