movement of 1821 could not have been successfully attempted. It would have collapsed at once, as shown by Iturbide's critical position when the reaction set in with sweeping desertion, and as proved by the rapid and almost bloodless triumph achieved, owing to the active and passive coöperation of the people, the guerrillas, the rural guards, the militia. Nay, more: the army which gave the second and decisive impulse to the tottering movement at Iguala was that of Guanajuato and Michoacan under Bustamante and other creoles, composed to a great extent of pardoned insurgents, who had not failed to spread their ideas, and to a greater extent of native militia wholly in sympathy with the former, and awaiting only an opportunity and a leader. The opportunity was offered in the military errors and neglect of the viceregal government. While Iturbide may justly claim to have presented a plan and leader round whom to rally the different elements all lying prepared, his party is to be regarded properly as only one of the ingredients in the leavening mass, which infuses the necessary stimulant for perfecting it. And if we look at the ultimate results we behold the movement of 1821 a mere brief episode, fading into an impracticable scheme, setting a bad example, and giving the main impulse to the bitter party spirit that for decades involves the country in all the horrors of fratricidal war. The movement of 1810, on the other hand, reasserts itself almost at once overwhelmingly, and is practically carried out under the old leaders, who regain prominence and retain it for their party, with brief exceptional intervals.
And so Mexico becomes again her own mistress, after a probationary course of three centuries under stringent colonial régime. Born of oppression, baptized in blood and rapine, often the tool of selfishness and other base passions, the revolution achieves in almost bloodless coup-d'état one aim—political in-
