The Committee rejoined,1
controverting the President
's positions; repelling his imputation that they or their party would encourage desertions, or resistance to the draft; suggesting that
The measures of the Administration, and its changes of policy in the prosecution of the war, have been the fruitful sources of discouraging enlistments and inducing desertions, and furnish a reason for the undeniable fact that the first call for volunteers was answered by very many more than were demanded, and that the next call for soldiers will probably be responded to by drafted men alone.
They express surprise at the President
's proffer to revoke the banishment of Mr.
V. on the conditions above specified, and decline to “enter into any bargains, terms, contracts, or conditions, with the President
of the United States
, to procure the release of Mr. Vallandigham
They regard the proffer as involving an imputation on their own sincerity and fidelity as citizens of the United States
;” and declare that
they have asked the revocation of the order of banishment not as a favor, but as a right due to the people of Ohio, and with a view to avoid the possibility of conflict or disturbance of the public tranquillity.
At this point, the argument of this grave question, concerning the right, in time of war, of those who question the justice or the policy of such war, to denounce its prosecution as mistaken and ruinous, was rested by the President
and his assailants — or rather, it was transferred2