Did you imagine that argument makes sense?
It doesn't, you know.
What makes sense is that Virginia's secession convention had already voted not to secede, but remained in secession, waiting for some Federal action which might justify changing their vote.
Lincoln wanted the Virginia convention to adjourn and go home, and offered them to abandon Fort Sumter if they did.
"A fort for a state" was Lincoln's proposal.
But Virginians turned down his offer, Jefferson Davis ordered war to begin at Fort Sumter and Virginians used war as their excuse to declare secession and join the Confederate war against the United States.
So the rest of your argument is just incoherent nonsense.
DiogenesLamp: "If they have a right to do so, and Lincoln refuses to let them because he doesn't find the deal satisfying, then that is corrupt. "
Lincoln didn't "refuse to let them" go.
Virginia's secession convention had already voted not to secede, and Lincoln simply wanted them to adjourn and go home, go you "get" that?
But Virginians said "no" and the rest is history.
Lincoln refused nothing.
It makes very good sense. I think you are suffering from an effect known as "cognitive dissonance" that keeps you from grasping the point.
Lincoln had neither the power to give away states, nor to hold them. His attempt to "Make a Deal" would have exceeded his authority whichever way it would have worked out.
Lincoln didn't "refuse to let them" go. Virginia's secession convention had already voted not to secede, and Lincoln simply wanted them to adjourn and go home, go you "get" that?
Are you implying that Lincoln had no intention of keeping his word about the trade which he had no authority to make?
I actually find that to be a believable prospect.
Yes, if Lincoln was lying in making his offer, (to get them to go home) then he wasn't really exceeding his authority. It is only if he had kept his word regarding his "deal" that he would have been exceeding his authority.
This still does not portray Lincoln in a very good light.