Oh please. Is that the best excuse that you can conjure up for your hero, lincoln? Like that lady at obama's town hall, you must be exhausted defending lincoln (and obama).
A negotiation is between equals, either of which can depart at any time with what they came to the negotiation with. The southern position was that they were going to take what they wanted, whether the US wanted to accept payment or not.
Obviously you don't know much about negotiation. Negotiation is a contact sport. The purpose of negotiation is to pursuade others to listen to your arguments, consider them and then to decide to help you achieve your goals.
If you are unable to convince others to your way of thinking, then you will ultimately end up doing their bidding.
However, your side refused to enter into negotiations (probably because they knew that they would lose legally, logically and rationally). They much preferred the 'might makes right' method.
The fact is that both are true. Are you familiar with Hobbes, Locke and social contract theory?
A social contract, or contract of any kind, has to have the agreement and compliance of both/all parties, otherwise it simply becomes strongarm tactics by the strong against the weak.
But regardless, these 'social contracts' are drawn up by men and do not trump every man's God given rights.
It's the fundamental basis of political philosophy.
Plato and Aristotle would be hurt to read that.
So if I hold a gun to your head, force you to listen to my demands, and you then do as I want, you'd consider that a negotiation. You should invest in a dictionary.
They much preferred the 'might makes right' method.
Says the side that seized everything they wanted, then made a vague offer to talk about paying something for it.
A social contract, or contract of any kind, has to have the agreement and compliance of both/all parties, otherwise it simply becomes strongarm tactics by the strong against the weak.
But you can't simply renounce the social contract at will and do what you want without regard to society, without society having any recourse. You can revolt against the society, revert to the state of nature, then create a new social contract more to your liking. Good luck with that.
Plato and Aristotle would be hurt to read that.
Plato's Republic was a totalitarian state built on enslaved masses unworthy of freedom. It figures you'd be a fan.