I would've preferred capitalism followed its natural course, and let one or two smaller banks die, than to get in a situation where a handful of huge banks can wipe out the entire economy if they are allowed to fail.
I'm curious what makes you think one outcome is the "natural course" of capitalism, while the other is not.
There has to be the risk of failure in the market. Otherwise a lot of money would be wasted and invested badly. Failure gives the incentive to be efficient and to do the job properly.
If you remove the existence of failure by saving them everytime, you teach them that doing the actions that led to failure are not that bad, and they can continue to do them, as long as it makes the people at the top wealthy.
I'm curious what makes you think one outcome is the "natural course" of capitalism, while the other is not.