How about negotiating after seizure of the property? The south seized armories, mints, customs houses, military facilities throughout the south without compensation. Then, once they had posession, we are to believe that they would have paid a fair price for them. If one party takes the property belonging to the other party, that party is at a distinct disadvantage in the negotiations. It no longer has posession of what belongs to it, and has to take whatever the first party offers no matter how unfair. Or else fight for what is theirs. That's not negotiation, that's brinksmanship.
Oh, please!
Your holier than thou pretense is just too much. Davis sent a legation to Washington to negotiate a settlement on property issues, and Honest Abe just left them to cool their heels. One of the sites the Southerners wanted to talk about was Fort Sumter, so at least this hadn't been seized. Lincoln never had any intention of coming to any peaceful settlement that included recognition of the Southern government and you know it.
It certainly would have been natural for the South to control forts and harbors within their own territory. And I never hear folks like you suggesting that maybe the South should have been due compensation for their share of Federal assets in the north which they partially funded and of which were natural part owners.
ML/NJ