The Daily Dispatch: March 6, 1865., [Electronic resource]

Juarez, the Mexican President, has issued a New Year's Proclamation, which the Philadelphia Inquirer says--

‘ "Does not read like the despairing fare-well of a chieftain who abandons a desperate cause. He conjures his countrymen to adhere to the fortunes of their country, not with the despondent words of one who doubts the issue of his appeals, but with a steady confidence which inspires and encourages.--The spirit of this sturdy Republican is not daunted by ill- fortune. There is no token of giving up the contest in his words. He speaks to the minds and the hearts of his countrymen, and bids them to be of good cheer. He counsels new efforts, and is resolved to maintain his struggles for Constitutional Government. The position of Maximilian continues most unhappy. He is in the condition of the man who bought a lawsuit.

’ "Instead of being welcomed as the great pacificator of Mexico, he is an object of unrelenting hate to a large majority of the people whose good will he would secure. He has endeavored to ingratiate himself with the venal and time-serving. He has succeeded with those who are to be bought. But their fealty is of short duration, and their loyalty will be turned to treason whenever they imagine that their infidelity will be for their advantage."

The Inquirer finds in these facts elements of consolation and hope for the final triumph of the Mexican Republic. What does it think of the proclamations of the Confederate President? Are there any "despondent words" in the official utterances of the Confederate Republic? Do they breathe aught but "a sturdy confidence, which inspires and encourages?" Are the "spirits of those sturdy Republicans daunted by ill-fortune," and is there any "token of giving up the contest in these words?" If Maximilian, "instead of being welcomed as the great pacificator of Mexico, is an object of unrelenting hate to a large majority of the people whose good will he would secure," is the Government of the United States in any better condition? If he has succeeded only with "the Vineland time-serving, whose loyalty will be turned to treason whenever they imagine that it will be to their advantage," whom else have the United States authorities made converts of in the Confederacy? If Maximilian "is in the condition of the man who bought a law suit," is he the only potentate in that condition on this continent?

We need not ask why it is that the same journal which sees elements of hope and rescue in the Mexican Republic can see none whatever in the Southern Confederacy. Here is this Juarez, a fugitive, with no settled habitation, with no permanent capital, with no money, with no army except a few thousand ragged Mexicans, whilst in the capital of his land sits enthroned Maximilian, having the confidence and support of a very considerable portion, and those amongst the most influential classes, of the Mexican people; holding all the towns, seaports and principal fastnesses of the country; defended by a splendid French army, and with all France at his back. Yet the Philadelphia Inquirer can see hope for Mexico in such a condition of things, and none for the Confederacy, whose capital stands erect and defiant; whose armies, under some of the first generals of the age, hold the field with invincible courage and determination, and whose people pray God, with one heart, as the greatest of earthly blessings, to be delivered from Federal subjugation.

If President Davis were like Juarez, a fugitive from the capital, running from post to pillar, followed by some ten thousand Confederates, what would the Inquirer think and say of the prospects of the Confederate cause? Yet, we do not deny that Mexico may, after all, reclaim her independence. The condition of Juarez is, after all, not much worse than of Washington at one period of the Revolution. If the majority of his people are determined to be free, the French occupation can never be permanent. All depends upon the people themselves. Why then are we, whose condition is so different from that of Juarez, invoked to despair, while Mexico is encouraged to hope? Are we less patriotic, less warlike, less liberty-loving, than Mexicans? Or have they greater motives for resistance? Have they more interests at stake? Will they be reduced to a more unhappy condition by submission to the benignant administration of Maximilian than we by Black Republican subjugation? There is hope for every people who love freedom; hope even for Mexico in its forlorn condition, and more than hope for us, if we are true to God and to our country.