My take has always been that European conservatism was primarily traditionalist, as are some strains of US conservatism, concerned as they are with the proper order of things. But the predominant strain of US conservatism is classic liberal. Most US conservatives are essentially Constitutionalists, and this is the quintessential "classic liberal" document. The doctrines that infused the founding of the republic were revolutionary, and continue to be revolutionary even in the modern context. And very much under fire, of course.
Both kinds of conservatives are concerned with virtue, of course, but the traditionalist see it as being embedded in the historical order, and the classic liberal perhaps sees it as being embedded in the natural order, perhaps, but something to be pursued in opposition to the historical order.
Conservatism isn't about holding on to the past, since history has shown that change happens.
You sound more like what I consider to be the "classic liberal" version of conservative, if my analysis is valid. Americans tend toward this simply because of their history, which was the rejection of the old order. The idea of a natural hierarchy among men has never had much attraction on this continent, although there are some who have been attracted to this proposition.
Those who deal in what should be, in the realm of utopianism and fancy, and who put a particular ideology on such a high pedestal that real life cannot touch it, are not conservatives, even if at times they may find themselves in alliance.
Someone else in this thread made the remark that the traditionalists, in harkening back to a past and an order that never was, are themselves utopians. And this is my take.
Of course, my caveats listed here don't really lay a glove on Burke, who was standing up against a collectivist anarchy on the continent. His reverence for the established British order only made sense; not because it was old, but because it was by comparison virtuous, and led the British people to the closest semblance of liberty.
Likewise the revolution on the continent was not evil because it was novel, it was evil because it was evil. The mass executions shocked Burke, and couldn't fail to shock any decent man (although is seems it failed to shock Jefferson, I think).
But that is the test. A reverence for an established order not because it is established, but to the degree that it embodies virtue. And a suspicion of novelty that requires mass executions for its success.
The distinction between the traditionalist and the classic liberal gets blurred in the US at least, though, simply because so many of us are not one or the other but include elements in our makeup of both.
You've said it best.
A courage in the service of virtue is more enduring than a life. A life works, but death alters its meaning. And while there will always be cynics and practiced satirists with their partial evidence succeeding left and right, the expedient remains historically contingent--this is no less true for the established procedure of a constitution. Unless it is grounded in the enduring truths beyond the law itself--which is what Strauss said--it will be the effectual whim of the moment that works.