Sorry, but first of all, there's no evidence that Lincoln himself was ever prepared to abandon Fort Sumter without getting something valuable in return, such as his offer of "a fort for a state" meaning Virginia. I'm sorry, but what does "Let's make a deal!" have to do with whether or not states have a legitimate right to leave?
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.
If they don't have a right to do so, and Lincoln makes a deal to let them go, then that is also corrupt.
How do you spin Lincoln's "Let's make a Deal!" behavior as anything but corrupt? Pick either outcome, and it still works out to Lincoln being corrupt.
He's either denying them rights they do have, or he is giving them rights they don't have.
DiogenesLamp:
"I'm sorry, but what does 'Let's make a deal' have to do with whether or not states have a legitimate right to leave? " 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.