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.
No, you are either utterly confused or simply lying about this.
Which is it?
Yes, in fact, Lincoln had no authority to negotiate with "emissaries" or agents sent by Jefferson Davis on issues like ownership of Federal properties, because the Constitution assigns such matters to Congress.
But Lincoln certainly could, and did, negotiate with pro-Union Virginians over adjourning their state's secession convention.
He offered them "a fort for a state", but they declined, end of negotiations.
No force threatened or applied, do you not "get" that?
So why do you keep saying Lincoln wanted to "give away" or "hold" seceding states?
The issue was actions by Virginia's secession commission, would they adjourn after voting not to secede?