Negotiate a settlement for property that the Davis regime had already seized and for property that the regime had not yet seized but had surrounded by cannons? They had most of what they wanted, and were prepared to seize the rest. Why would Abraham Lincoln or anyone else believe that negotiations for a settlement on the property would be made in good faith?
And that is ignoring the fact that, southron myth to the contrary, the representatives from the Davis regime were not there to negotiate a settlement on seized property. Their instructions were "(f)or the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States..." In otherwords, to get recognition of southern independence from the Lincoln Administration. Only once that had been obtained would they "agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations..." Sounds very vague to me.
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.
Be that as it may, common sense would dictate that the settlement of issues should have taken place before secession and not after. Except that the south wasn't interested in a settlement.
You're kidding, aren't you?
ML/NJ