301 CHRONICLESnall egalitarian and revolutionary tendencies.nBut this is to set up thensituation the wrong way and to shift thenburden of innovation from the abolitionistsnto the preservers of the statusnquo, which tends to interfere with anproper understanding of both groups.nHe sees proslavery sentiment in thenNorth as closely linked to the sternestnforms of conservative New Englandnfederalism, which, alarmed by thenFrench Revolution, repudiated thenAmerican Revolution and moved towardnthe consolidation and defense ofnhierarchical, traditional, religious society.nThere is a good deal of truth there,nbut I think I could very easily, bynlooking at other evidence, find a genealogynwithin New England federalismnfor abolitionism as well. Certainly thenSouthern defenders of slavery usuallynsaw this as the case.nTo put it another way, while correctlynidentifying the existence of vigorousnproslavery sentiment in the North, henmislocates its center and considerablynunderestimates its overall weight. Bynusing some of his own evidence andnother sources, I could create a convincingnargument that while certain Northernnfederalists did indeed defend slaverynon conservative grounds, thendefense of slavery was even strongernamong the Jeffersonians of the Northnthan it was among the federalists.nThe Jeffersonians, after all, werendedicated to states rights and strictnconstruction of the Constitution as itnstood and to an economic philosophynthat coincided with the South’s. JohnnC. Calhoun at the height of his careernof sectional defense of the South had anconsiderable number of admirers in thenNorth. These were not among then”conservatives” (in Northern terms)nbut among the most zealous “liberals”n— for instance, the young radical,nOrestes Brownson, and FitzwilliamnByrdsall, historian of the New Yorkn”Locofocos.” (Of course we must realizenthat a “liberal” in those days wasnnot the same thing as a “progressive”nin Whiggish and modern terminology-)nThus Tise tends to suggest thatnNortherners who sympathized with thenSouth before and during the Civil Warnwere conspiratorial federalist millionairesnwho believed in the BavariannlUuminati. There were some people ofnthat type who favored the Confedera­ncy, but in fact, by my reading ofnhistory, people of that type were far,nfar more likely to be abolitionists andnRepublicans. Southern sympathizersnlike Franklin Pierce, ClementnVallandigham, and others came overwhelminglynout of a Jeffersonian background.nThis is clear even in much ofnTise’s own evidence. Such slavery defendersnas Charles J. Ingersoll of Pennsylvania,nJames K. Paulding of NewnYork, and John Mitchel, the Irish revolutionary,nwere Democrats and do notnfit the stereotype of reactionary NewnEngland clerics. A considerable portionnof both the “liberals” and then”conservatives” of the North defendednthe South’s regime, right up to and, innsome cases, even after the rumble ofnguns in Charleston harbor.nTo take this analysis a bit further, wenhave to accept the truth that a 19thcenturyn”liberal” was not a progressivenin the modern sense. The liberal elementsnin American society, those mostnstrongly in favor of democracy andnequality for white men, were also,ngenerally speaking, the strongest supportersnof white supremacy, of limitedngovernment, and of traditional (antiegalitarian)nsocial arrangements, andnlooked to the South as their politicalnmainstay. On the other hand, then”conservative” elements — those innfavor of social hierarchy and economicnprivilege — in the North were also then”progressives” who wanted forwardnmovement in society, by governmentnaction if necessary, and found thenSouth a political and social impediment.nIt would be tremendously comfortingnfor the modern liberal if majoritynrule, racial egalitarianism, and socialnprogressivism always went together,nand indeed much of accepted Americannhistory is written as if they did. But,nin fact, such has seldom been the casenin the reality of living, breathingnAmerica—whether in the pre-CivilnWar era, in the Progressive era, or, darenwe say, in the present. Historically it isnquite clear that enthusiasm for thencommon man has often gone hand-inglovenwith white supremacy, and racialnegalitarianism has often been accompaniednby indifference or contempt fornthe common man.nI am sure that most will find thisneven more discouraging than Tise’snperspective and that many will not andnnncannot accept it. It does not particularlyndiscourage me, because I do notnexpect history to be convenient andnpleasing. The lessons it teaches arenusually a good deal sterner than theninevitable triumph of democracy andnprogress. As I sometimes tell studentsnwho really want to know: History is likenlife — it is a good deal tougher, morencomplicated, and more ambivalentnthan television.nIt was really not part of the author’snpurpose to provide a theory of thenorigins of the American right and left,nexcept insofar as he adopts certainnassumptions about the nature of thenAmerican Revolution. It would thus benunfair of me to quarrel with him in thisnregard. Indeed, he has given us, evennif unintentionally, much food fornthought in regard to the historical developmentnof the right and left innAmerica, a highly problematic intellectualnpuzzle which happens to interestnme, and for which I believe no adequatentheory has ever been provided.nOf course, a great deal depends onnhow you define such terms as liberalnand conservative, and when dealingnwith them historically one is alwaysnshooting at a moving target. Suchnquestions cannot be easily settled, andnit may even be that it is impossible. Butnit does seem to me that the evidence ofnProslavery has to be taken into accountnby anyone who takes an honest interestnin constructing a genealogy of Americannconservatism.nHow should American conservativesnrelate to the Civil War, for instance? Indo not believe this question has evernbeen answered to any honest man’snsatisfaction. Was it conservative to defendnthe South and its inherited ways,nits counterrevolution against modernization?nOr was it conservative to preserventhe Union, as did Mr. Lincoln,neven at the expense of the most revolutionarynacts and program in Americannhistory and with the enthusiastic approvalnof Kari Marx?nPersonally, I have never been able toncomprehend how any conservativenwho had any intelligent appreciation ofnthe real texture (rather than just thentheory) of American experience couldnfail to feel a surge of sympathy with thenboys in gray. I can well understandnhow one could admire William LloydnGarrison, Thaddeus Stevens, andnCharles Sumner. But I cannot under-n