Short answer: No.
There is a section in this sub's FAQ about slavery and the Civil War that you will probably find helpful. /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov's answer to the question "Was the American Civil War about more than just slavery?" is particularly thorough and pertinent.
I have recently written this answer that details all the other "states' rights" that were ever complained about in the ~80 year period before the Civil War. From that, hopefully it makes it more clear how all the "states' rights" issues were already either resolved, or else were never cited as a cause for war, or else were abandoned by the Confederacy as soon as the war started (sometimes all three). The only "states' right" that remained constant and was never abandoned by the South was slavery.
In this answer, /u/freedmenspatrol gives more detail about why the "states' rights" complaint was only ever a euphemism for a state's right to preserve and protect slavery, and nothing else of any real substance.
You may also want to read the book The Causes of the Civil War by Kenneth M. Stampp, which is a collection of historical documents (speeches, pamphlets, newspaper editorials, etc.) from the time period that showcase what led to the violent conflict. Stampp divides these documents into several chapters by topic. Those topics are bolded below, with my brief description of each. As can be seen, none can really be divorced from the issue of slavery:
The "Slave Power" and the "Black Republicans". Northerners complained of the pro-slavery oligarchy in the South, while Southerners complained of the anti-slavery political movement in the North.
States Rights and Nationalism. Northerners believed their states had a right to take steps against slavery, while Southerners believed that the North was interfering with their rights to preserve slavery. This had led to competing white cultures in the United States, divided along a geographical line, with Southerners increasingly determined to establish a separate country in which their slavery-based society could be preserved.
Economic Sectionalism. Southern economics was based upon slave labor. Northern economics was not, except in the indirect way that some Northerners (such as the banking industry) profited from the economy of the South. Many Northerners complained about this, and about slavery's effect on wages and real estate. They instead favored a fair economy based on the labor of a free society. Many Southerners complained of the North being hypocritical, and felt federal economic policy was sometimes punitive. This economic disagreement, rooted in slavery, led to conflict.
Blundering Politicians and Irresponsible Agitators. There were opposing views over slavery that could be resolved peacefully, but politicians were inept while pro- and anti-slavery activists were accused of purposefully instigating conflict.
The Right and Wrong of Slavery. There was a conflict over slavery as a moral issue.
Majority Rule and Minority Rights. Southerners, in the minority, believed that the emerging Northern majority represented a threat to the future of slavery. Northerners believed they were living under a pro-slavery minority rule, which was undemocratic since democracy is based upon majority rule.
Conflict of Cultures. Southern culture was a slavery-based society, with enslaved black people as the lowest caste, while the wealthy white plantation class was the highest caste. There was a class system in the North, too, but it was not based on slavery, and they prided themselves on that. Increasing hostility between the two cultures led to unrest.
As Georgy_K_Zhukov briefly addresses at the bottom of their post linked above, the best that could be said is that the average soldier in the South was not entirely motivated by preserving slavery, or in the North (especially before 1863) by ending slavery, but this is conflating two separate issues. In any war, soldiers are called to arms through rhetoric of patriotism and nationalism, and it was the same in the Civil War, with the Confederacy rallying support for a new Southern nation. (It should not be forgotten that the U.S. also tried to rally Southern support for the Constitution and the nation as it was, and there were plenty of Unionists in the South.) Still, a "Southern nation" was universally understood to be a nation as one with a slavery-based social order, separate from the North.
In his book For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, James M. McPherson details the motivations of the soldiers, with patriotism/nationalism leading the way. However, slavery and the Southern way of life was also a common sentiment expressed by Southerners, with slavery being a particularly popular sentiment coming from soldiers whose families held people as slaves (and there were many such soldiers). For more info, I have gone in to some detail in this previous response.
Further, whatever personal motivations a soldier may have had, it doesn't really change the fact of why the Southern political class attempted secession and initiated war. The soldiers in both North and South understood that the war had been initiated to preserve slavery and Southern slavery-based culture. Compare it to World War II: a lot of American soldiers enlisted because their buddies were enlisting, because it was their patriotic duty, because it was their best-paying job prospect, because of social pressure, etc., etc. It still doesn't change the fact that the U.S. entered the war because it was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, nor does it change the fact that the war in Europe was instigated by Hitler's land grabs, culminating in war declarations against Germany after the Nazis invaded Poland. Soldiers may have had personal incentives for fighting, but the soldiers still understood what political conflicts caused the war that they were fighting in.
Lastly, I'd also refute what Shelby Foote says at the beginning of Ken Burns' Civil War documentary. In the doc, historian Barbara Fields makes the case that the war was about slavery, which is then juxtaposed with Foote saying the war was about "the failure to compromise" and leaves it at that. But failure to compromise over what? He offers no specifics, because he, as a neo-Lost Causer (a more realistic Lost Causer than most, but a Lost Causer nonetheless) knows that the failure to compromise was over a list of slavery-related issues. Specifically, the expansion of slavery westward, the Fugitive Slave Act, the future of slavery in Washington D.C. and on federal property, the issue of "slave transit" into Northern states, etc. All compromise negotiations between November 1860 and the start of the war had everything to do with these slavery-related issues. No substantive issue not having to do with slavery was ever the subject of serious debate.
So, to put Foote's assertion in perspective, virtually every war ever is about "the failure to compromise" peacefully, leading to an attempt to achieve political aims through violence instead. But that really says nothing about what the issues leading to those failures were—it's just a way to evade the question, as many Lost Causers often do.
To use the same argument, the American Revolution was caused by a "failure to compromise" between the Americans and Great Britain, but that ignores the very explicit list of issues detailed in the Declaration of Independence. The war in Europe in World War II was caused by a "failure to compromise" between Nazi Germany and the Allied Powers, but that ignores the actions of Germany when invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other provocative actions they had taken that violated the treaties of World War I.
Likewise, the Civil War resulted from the "failure to compromise" between North and South. The three major efforts to avoid the war during the Secession Crisis—one resulting in the failed Crittenden Compromise, one resulting in the failed Corwin Amendment, and the other being the Washington Peace Conference of 1861—all had to do with slavery issues. There are official journals of all three efforts, and, again, nothing of any substance was ever discussed, except issues related to slavery. And as Georgy_K_Zhukov's answer details, before the war, the South was rather explicit about their causes for disunion and war being all about slavery. It was only after the war that Confederates, trying to justify their actions and defend themselves against social stigma and accusations of treason, began arguing that slavery had little or nothing to do with it.
Or as Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens put it, slavery was only a "mere drop in the ocean" as a cause of the war...which he wrote while sitting in jail after the war, accused of treason. He's the same man who had called slavery the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy. But with slavery already effectively ended in all but a couple states at that point, and with the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery just a few states away from ratification, he tried to downplay its importance. The cause for war hadn't changed, only the legal repercussions Stephens was facing for the actions he'd taken in support of that cause.
TL;DR: It was all about slavery. No substantial issue unrelated to slavery was ever argued over, or ever cited as a cause for war.