Page:Vol 1 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/523

Rh been conferred on the latter. Velazquez held besides the right of a discoverer to this coast, and above all the royal grant to it, vaguely worded though it was so far as indicating the situation and extent of territory. He had a right to claim his own; though circumstances had so changed, Cortés claimed, as to render this perilous to the interests of God, the king, and the people, which rose above those of individuals; and in ignoring the orders of the audiencia to desist from war on his countrymen he followed only natural law and justifiable impulse. In this respect Cortés was equally guilty, since his duty was to yield to the rightful claimant. He pleads in his letter to the king, however, that self-preservation obliged him to resist, for Narvaez had determined to hang him and several of his followers. Here he again hides the fact that favorable terms were at one time offered. Had Narvaez carried off the victory," he continues, "it would have been with a great loss, which must have so weakened him as to surely enable the Indians to succeed in their meditated revolt. This would have lost the country to the king and to the faith, and twenty years would not have sufficed to regain it. In brief, howsoever we admire Cortés, however much we would prefer his banner to that of Velazquez or Narvaez, we must admit that he had hardly a shadow of right on his side, and that no position in which he could possibly place himself was tenable. He was a defaulter, pirate, usurper, renegade, traitor, outlaw, hypocrite; but he was a most lovable villain, an admirable soldier, a rare hero. On the other hand, Velazquez was right. But, though deeply injured, he was disagreeable; though foully wronged, he was vanquished. And the Spanish monarch was not the first or last to smile on iniquitous success, or turn the cold shoulder to whining, disappointed virtue.