It has been adequately demonstrated that it did not involve welfare of troops.
I see you're already backing into the "it was ours and we could do as we wished" version of this argument, seeing as how the 'starving garrison at Sumter' argument made previously discharges the last few twiches of its death spiral.
They had the enemy all around. I'd say their welfare was in question.
I see you're already backing into the "it was ours and we could do as we wished" version of this argument, seeing as how the 'starving garrison at Sumter' argument made previously discharges the last few twiches of its death spiral.
Just going by speeches to the Congress. The US government should supply US troops when they're surrounded by the enemy, whether it's food or arms, despite any verbal agreement by a derelict administration, which it appears the Buchanan administration was.