Interesting stuff.
But you’ll find it a pretty hard row to hoe claiming that abolitionists were political conservatives, no matter what denomination they to.
Now I agree that under today’s standards of conservatism abolitionism would be required. Proper understanding of the Founding requires it, IMO.
But it is just a fact that abolitionism from 1830 to 1860 was not a conservative position. In fact, since it by definition entailed enormous change and disruption of society (not to mention destruction of “property rights” and expansion of government power) it was by definition a non-conservative position.
Sherman, if the Republican party continues to move left -- look, for example, how David Axelrod is speaking before Republicans meeting this week in Park City, Utah ... then it won't be long before "political conservatives" will have ANY political "home party" base in the U.S. Were that to happen, it would be an unfair critique to claim there were few-to-none notable "political conservatives"...
Why do I mention that?
Because prior to the creation of the Republican party around the mid-1850s, there really wasn't a "political conservative" home base in the 1830s and 1840s and early 1850s when the abolitionist movement was picking up steam.
So your observation is really unfair. They didn't have a welcome mat among the pro-slavery Democrats; and the Whigs were on the way to their demise.
That is where we are now. The Democrats are pro-same sex marriage, pro-homosexuality, and pro-slavery unto dismemberment of all in the womb. And the Republicans are now like the Whigs -- on their way to their demise. Soon, there won't be a "welcome mat" out for pro-life, pro-marriage Republicans.
Eventually, another party may rise up -- and give a home party base to "political conservatives"...