points this, no doubt, is true; but the time and place must be remembered, and also that it was the cruelty of the surgeon to save the body rather than that of the savage who delights in torture. Hidalgo had his work to do; if cruelty could not be avoided, then there must be cruelty. He would purchase the highest benefaction within the reach of humanity; if robbery and murder were part of the price, still it must be paid. Yet for all this, judging the man fairly, passing under review his past life and his present purpose, his mind, heart, and disposition, and I do not think he can be called cruel, revengeful, and bloody-minded, as some would stamp him. War is a great wickedness; and if this species of robbery and murder may ever be justified, there is so little difference between the orthodox article and the quality of reprisal as practised in the present crusade that it is not worth discussing.
Some have said that Hidalgo's intention was to establish a republic; it may have been so, but it is nowhere shown. Zavala holds to the contrary opinion. There appears to have been no political or military plan adopted by the leaders of the revolution, hurried along as they were upon a tide of events which they could hardly control.
The large class in Mexico, of those who ever since the grito de Dolores have seemed to delight in gathering evidence and making charges damaging to the fair name of Hidalgo, is gradually becoming less. I would hide nothing in any historical character. I would not be blind to the faults of my hero. Neither would I magnify flaws of character until a little fault is made to appear larger than a great principle. Moreover, there has been much speculation as to what would have been the result had he pursued a different course, His firmness of purpose and opinion has been called obstinacy, because he would not yield to Allende and the others. Had he marched on Mexico; had he retired part of his force to the mountains
