If we accept the proposition that wars whose main purpose is merely the preservation of territorial integrity are morally suspect and that deaths incurred therein are “mass slaughter” morally equivalent to murder

then

a full-throated defense of the Loyalists becomes more difficult (not impossible) to make.

I don’t see how it follows, or how the consequent is related to the antecedent. Are you maintaining the Loyalists were fighting a war to maintain territorial integrity? I assume that by “territorial” you also mean more than just geography but the political and constitutional arrangement as well.

Even if either side can be defended, there should be some standard which a judgment as to the rightness and justice of a side can be ultimately be judged. I don’t think it is merely Lincoln was wrong, therefore the Loyalists were wrong, or the Loyalists were right, therefore Lincoln was right as well.

Well, actually it’s uncertain which side fired the first shot at Lexington, and it’s certain that the fight occurred because the British were planning to seize the colonial militia arms at Concord. Of course, we could go back before that and say Patriot-begun events like the Boston Tea Party were the real “start” of the war. I think either side of the debate can be defended (and one could argue that the same goes for the 1861-1865 war as well).

My point was that if we accept the proposition that wars whose main purpose is merely the preservation of territorial integrity are morally suspect (as you seem to, and as I generally would as well) and that deaths incurred therein are “mass slaughter” morally equivalent to murder (this proposition is more debatable, but I’ll agree that if the war is truly unjust then this is so), a full-throated defense of the Loyalists becomes more difficult (not impossible) to make.

Now, this definition can indeed come up against some contradictions. Free-market conservatives try to defend and uphold capitalism against the predations of communists, because they believe that capitalism reflects basic truths about human nature. But there are also communists who could be considered “conservatives” within their own ranks, because they believe fervently that communism reflects the basic truth of human nature. I can understand why such people are considered “conservatives” within the communist world, even though they do not beleive in the same truths that conservative capitalists believe in. So conservatism itself is not merely an ideology, but an ideology based on a certain way of seeing fundamental truths. It is not, in reality, revolutionary, in that it is not trying to destroy old truths. It is trying to destroy what it considers lies that hide the truth.

So I don’t particularly see conservatism as wedded to institutions or traditions for their own sake. Conservatives are only wedded to institutions that serve to preserve and promote these fundamental truths they believe are the basis for a human society. If the institutions depart from that purpose, they lose legitimacy in the eyes of conservatives. If they return to that purpose, they regain legitimacy. Thus, conservatives can lead revolutionary political movements when institutions fundamentally fail to reflect and preserve and promote these basic truths. This is not the same as a liberal-motivated revolution that would seek to create new truths and be done with “old truths”, as if the core truths of life could ever be made obsolete by any superficial changes in the world.

Talking about what a conseravtive is in relation to various governments and governemtn qua government is not really productive…

Isn’t engagement with politics a sign that we are not in the presence of “conservatism”?

What is this or that form of government to a conservative? I’d say it’s of no real concern other than the extent to which it fosters, ignores or damages the “culture”(?) in which the conservative lives and wants to preserve…

I don’t mean to be snotty, but isn’t this because they fought, killed a lot of people, but were defeated before they could kill any more?

From the way this sentence is phrased, one might think the British and the Loyalists were quasi-pacifists who gave up the fight in April 1775 or at least no later than July 1776, but as you surely know, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Obviously the question of when killing the enemy in war becomes “mass slaughter” is subjective, but the several thousand Patriots who were killed in action (and the several thousand more who died of war-related but non-battle deaths) would have been startled to learn that they died at the hands of exceptionally tender-hearted folk.

The British and Loyalists tried their best, lost fair and square on the battlefield, and rightfully gave up. The state of British politics in 1781-1783 is not an aspect of the Revolution in which I have much expertise, but I am not aware of any evidence that guilt over or compassion toward colonial war dead played any role whatsoever in the British decision to make peace. I would be interested to hear if there is any such evidence, however.

If the outcomes of Yorktown and Antietam had been reversed, this whole discussion would be completely different. (Well, obviously if Yorktown had come out differently there would have been no Antietam, but you know what I mean.) The British and Loyalists stopped fighting because they lost, not because they disliked killing the enemy. (And as for Canada, they had killed quite a few people to win control of that area in the first place. The deportation of the Acadians exceeded anything Sherman ever did.) In shot, the myth of the pacifist or tender-hearted Loyalists is, frankly, a rather bizarre assertion on your part.