[arthurus]

In a biography of John Hunt Morgan there is a reference to appreciation of Hegel. In general the slaveholding caste in the South can be described as “conservative” only in that they desired to ‘conserve’ the institution of slavery. Conservativism turns ut to be a relative term. Russian Conservatism in 1989 is a very different thing from American Conservatism in the present, and even that is relative. What we try to conserve even now is what the radical left has imposed on us continuously since President Wilson up to a dozen years before today.

[BroJoeK]

arthurus: "...In general the slaveholding caste in the South can be described as “conservative” only in that they desired to ‘conserve’ the institution of slavery.
Conservativism turns ut to be a relative term.
Russian Conservatism in 1989 is a very different thing from American Conservatism in the present, and even that is relative..."

Right, and that bears repeating.
American conservatism can be boiled down to two words: Constitution & Bible.
We could expand those to say: the ideals & intentions of our Founders plus traditional values from the Bible.
They include such things as life, liberty, family, voluntary associations, private enterprise, constitutionally limited government and so on.

In other cultures & times, "conservative" can mean almost anything -- in communist China, for example, "conservative" might refer to the CCP and "radicals" to Hong Kong (small-d) democrats.
Point is: please don't get hung up on that word "conservative", it doesn't always mean what we think of in the US today.

Clearly, in 1860 Southern Fire Eaters wanted to "conserve" slavery, but as for "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...", not so much.