mass of the people to follow leaders like Garibaldi and Mazzini,--one of
whom was rash to audacity, and the other visionary; and neither of whom
had the confidence of the government at Turin, which, however, was not
disposed to throw cold water on their enterprises or seriously to
interfere with them. One thing is clear,--that had not the Italians, on
the whole, been ripe for revolution it could not have succeeded; as in
France the _coup d'état_ of 1851, which enabled Louis Napoleon to mount
the throne, could not have succeeded twenty years earlier when he made
his rash attempt at Strasburg. All successful revolutions require the
ready assent--nay, even the enthusiasm--of the people. The Italian
revolution was based on popular discontent in all parts of the country
where the people were oppressed, and on their enthusiastic aspirations
for a change of rulers. What could any man of genius, however great his
abilities, have done without this support of the people? What could the
leaders of the American Revolution have done unless the thirteen
colonies had rallied around them? Certainly no liberated people ever
supported their leaders with greater enthusiasm and more self-sacrifices
than the Italians. Had they been as degraded as has sometimes been
represented, they would not have fought so bravely.

The Italian revolution in its origin dates back as early as 1820, when
the secret societies were formed--especially that of the Carbonari--with
a view to shake the existing despotisms. The Carbonari ("charcoal
burners"), as they called themselves, were organized first at Naples.
This uprising (at first successful) in Naples and Piedmont was put down
by Austrian bayonets, and the old order of things was restored. A
constitutional government had been promised to various Italian States by
the first Napoleon in 1796. when he invited the Italians to rally to
his standard and overthrow the Bourbon and Austrian despotisms; but his
promises had not been kept. "Never," said that great liar to Prince