Conservative Conserve Nothing — The Man Who Saw It All Coming In 1871

Conservative Conserve Nothing — The Man Who Saw It All Coming In 1871

This excerpt is from Robert Lewis Dabney’s 1871 essay “Women’s Rights Women.” Dabey was a Reb, and therefore he and his views are now anathema. If he ever had a statue, it has surely been torn down by now. He has said things elsewhere with which you will disagree; yet your disagreement with that is irrelevant to what he said below. Once again I abjure you to note the date, which is nearing its sesquicentennial. Some paragraphifications have been added to enhance readability on screens.

In our day, innovations march with so rapid a stride that they quite take away one’s breath. The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact. Such has been the history of the agitation for “women’s rights,” as they are sophistically called in this country. A few years ago this movement was the especial hobby of a few old women of both sexes, who made themselves the laughing-stock of all sane people by the annual ventilation of their crotchet.

Their only recruits were a few of the unfortunates whom nature or fortune had debarred from those triumphs and enjoyments which are the natural ambition of the sex, and who adopted this agitation as the most feasible mode of expressing their spitefulness against the successful competitors. To-day the movement has assumed such dimensions that it challenges the attention of every thoughtful mind…

One result of the reflection which we have been able to give this movement, is the conviction that it will prevail in the so-called “United States.” This is foreshadowed by the frantic lust for innovation which has seized the body of the people like an epidemic. It is enough with them to condemn any institution, that it was bequeathed us by our forefathers; because it is not the invention of this age, it is wrong, of course. In their eyes no experience proves anything, save the experience which they have had themselves…

The very axioms of American politics now are, that “all men are by nature equal,” that all are inalienably “entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and that “the only just foundation of government is in the consent of the governed.” There was a sense in which our fathers propounded these statements; but it is not the one in which they are now held by Americans…Those wise statesmen meant to teach that all men are morally equal in the sense of the Golden Rule…Radical America now means by natural liberty each one’s privilege to do what he chooses to do…By “the consent of the governed” it would appear that Radicalism means it is entirely just for Yankeedom to govern Virginia against Virginia’s consent…

And last: the State has committed the crowning outrage and inconsistency of not letting [Mistress Amazona Narragansett] be a man because God made her a woman! What an outrage this to be committed on so frivolous a pretext! Be consoled, Mistress Amazona; it is simply impossible that such abuses can stand much longer in the full light of this reforming age…That mighty tide of progress which has already swept away the Constitution, and slavery, and State’s rights, and the force of contracts public and private, with all such rubbish, will soon dissolve your grievance also. Has not the Radical version of the political gospel said, “All men are by nature mechanically equal?”…It means that a woman has a natural right to do all the particular things that a man does (if she can), to sit on juries and shave her beard, to serve in the army and ride astraddle, to preach sermons and sing bass…

(Start here if you are short of time or attention.)

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.

This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance.

The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip.

No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

The reader is reminded that most of Dabney’s prophecies have come to pass; we anxiously await the completion of animal “rights” to make his average one hundred percent. The essay continues after this, but that’s enough for today.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. It is impossible to parody the demands of the progressive, nor the craven cowardice of the conservative. For truly, whatever parody you may devise, they have already done the same, and worse.

    The conservative movement has conserved nothing but their own paychecks.

  2. “The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact. Such has been the history of the agitation for “women’s rights,” as they are sophistically called in this country. ”

    Remember, boys and girls, “sophistically” comes from sophist.

    Ah, how some things are ever true, and never change.

  3. Sheri

    Ah, yes, the thousandth fall of civilization foreseen. The fact that women are vicious but easily duped creatures did not prevent stupid men from capitulating and letting the insane run the assylum. Of course, the same result as the first woman munching on a apple will follow, but humans so LOVE being tortured, killed, fighting wars and living in bondage they just can’t stop themselves. New York just expanded abortion rights, the right of men to have whatever woman they want and then woman can kill the result of action, taking all the risk on their own lives. MEN LOVE ABORTION and stupid, stupid women fall for this every time. So sad that women are indeed the stupider of the two sexes in so many, many cases.

    At any rate, there is no fixing stupidity, so get ready to live in a nightmare, probably Sharia law at best, because women are always petting the grizzly bears and alligators right up until they are eaten by them. (I have no idea where the men are while this is going on. Maybe they just figure they can somehow avoid the consequences of their stupidity in letting women run the world. They can’t, of course, but again, they don’t learn.)

  4. Nate

    The men are locked into the grand evil which is known as Chivalry (or ‘Courtly Love’). Originally a medieval argument for adultery, it has been transformed into a teaching where the man is to worship the woman, instead of the woman submitting to the man (. Modern Christianity is full of this teaching – every Father’s Day, pulpits around the USA ring out with calls to men to “man up” and start doing what their wives tell them to do. Dalrock has some excellent posts on the subject.

    Fundamentally, conservatives have lost the gender wars because they accept Chivalry.

  5. This essay is a real gem, thanks for posting. As early as 1871 the necessary course of American radicalism could be plotted with accuracy. A search will no doubt turn up some sage in 1789 predicting the general course of American decline simply from its founding principles. The essay’s brisk and forceful clarity of language is refreshing. And its wit: “…the especial hobby of a few old women of both sexes…”. And amazing to see a perfect understanding of the fraud and impotence of Conservatism, which even back then meant nothing more than conserving Liberalism. Great stuff. I believe this man is an ancestor of yours, Briggs.

    Thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *