Because you say so? Whoop-de-do.
You admit that the Confederacy sent peace commissioners to Washington in the early days of the Lincoln administration to negotiate peace and organize payment to the Federal government for any property or debt for which it had responsibility.
I admit nothing of the kind, that is your imaginative interpretation. Based on the letter of introduction sent to Lincoln by Jefferson Davis, there is no evidence they were there to do anything but present his demands - recognize the legitimacy of Southern secession. They were not there to negotiate, the letter doesn't say they were there to negotiate. Negotiation requires that the positions of both sides be discussed, and Lincoln's position wasn't on the table. There was no indication that they were prepared to discuss debt or payment for stolen property, the letter mentions nothing of the kind. Only a vague offer to 'agree, treat, consult, and negotiate' but only on 'matters and subjects interesting to both nations'. So if payment for debt wasn't of interest to Davis then it wasn't open for discussion. If payment for stolen property wasn't of interest then it wasn't open for discussion.
Call the letter what it was; an arrogant demand. An ultimatum. But it wasn't an offer to negotiate and it wasn't an offer to pay for anything. That is the myth you build into it, not me.
Somehow, you want to draw the conclusion that the word “surrender” applies to that.
And what was the outcome that they were there to get? Recognition of confederate independence. A complete cave in to rebel demands. Not Lincoln's position - an end to secession and return to the rule of law. So how did they imagine that they could get what they were demanding if not through a complete surrender to their ultimatum on the part of Lincoln? Calling it a surrender is calling it what it is.
The status quo was peace, which the Confederacy was attempting to reinforce through diplomacy.
The confederates were not interested in the status quo. If they had been then they wouldn't have forced the issue at Sumter. They would have allowed the peaceful resupply of food and allow the status quo to continue. Instead they chose war and are responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.
Lincoln's position from the beginning had been the forceful retention of two federal posts on Southern property. To say that they were not interested in his position is correct.
So? They belonged to the federal government. The South had no legal rights to them, or any of the other federal property they had stolen. You are blaming the crime on the owner of the property and not the thief.
To say that they were not interested in Lincoln's alternative to peace was correct.
So how can you say they were there to negotiate?
But they remained loyal to the concept of peaceful existence with the Union, and made every effort to enable that to happen.
By demanding that the Union cave in to their demands and then by bombarding a fort for 36 hours. Some peaceful existence.
The great statesman, politician, freedom loving Lincoln made sure that death replaced peace and offers of compensation turned into seized, trampled, and burned property.
Cue the violins. The great Southron myth machine is at full power once again.
Your theory is that the People have no rights at all.
Only the Government has "rights". The People are always wrong, and need to be talked down to by the voice of command.
Step up to the bar, then, treat us all to another round of barrel-proof statism.
Do you ever read what you post?
Both documents say that they are there to NEGOTIATE!
“Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith.”
Adopted February 15, 1861.
President Davis' letter to the Union government:
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
In both, their objective was to negotiate......and what was a major issue....EQUITY. See above.
And what would these be....? "A complete cave in to rebel demands."