whole, and also the interpretative modelrnof the left that goes with it. As a result,rneach of the Cousins’ Wars, in his analysis,rntends to be the same war over and overrnagain, like Twilight Zone renms. To arnlarge extent, this is the result of historicalrncoincideirce: The Puritans of East Angliarnwere the leading forces against the crownrnin the English Revoluhon of the 1640’s,rnand their descendants in New Englandrntended to assume the same role againstrnthe Southern states 200 years later, whilernthe South itself—Southerners from Virginia,rnat least—liked to identify with thernCavaliers (though a good many Confederatesrnfrom other parts of the region eitherrnignored or more or less consciouslyrnrejected that identification). Mr. Phillipsrndevotes a fair amount of space to discussingrnNew England Protestant theologicalrnbeliefs that fed the crusade againstrnslavery, but he tends to neglect Southernrnreligion. That is just as well, sincernSouthern religion in that era wasrnoften equally reflective of the “LowrnChurch, Calvinistic Protestantism” thatrnsupposedly animated the North.rnIn short, for all its erudition. ThernCousins’ Wars still manages to compressrninto a preconceived and historically unreliablernmold historical realities that justrndo not fit. Moreover, Mr. Phillips arguesrnthat it is precisely because the side thatrnwon did win that the Anglos triumphed.rnHad the High Church monarchism ofrnCharles I or the slave economy of the feudalisticrnand deferential South won, thenrnthe Anglo-Saxon peoples would not havernprospered in wealth and power in thisrncentun,’ quite as much as they have.rnMr. Phillips may be right about that,rnbut again he may also be the victim of hisrnown historical myopia. Had the side thatrnwon not won, then the values and idealsrnit was promulgating would not have beenrndominant in the Western world, andrnthere would be few today who would berndefending them as morally correct andrnhistorically inevitable. Mr. Phillips alsornhas little to say about the future that thernvictory of certain ideas has opened for thernAnglos. If the 20th century has been thernAnglo century, and the Anglos have beenrndriven by the kind of modernism that Mr.rnPhillips sees triumphing in the 1640’s,rn178G*s, and I860’s, then these samernforces might reasonably be held responsiblernfor the incipient disappearance of thernAnglo-Saxon peoples within the bordersrnof the very lands their ancestors conqueredrnand settled. In the short run, thernkind of modernism Mr. Phillips ascribesrnto the victors in the Cousins’ Wars mayrnconquer new coiuitries, develop newrnsources of wealth, and spread liberty asrnfar as it cair reach, but its very successrnmay also lead to its own destruction as thernliberfy it sows poisons the soil of its ownrncivilization, the wealth it produces corrupts,rnand the conquered give laws to thernconquerors. Whatever Mr. Phillips’rnmodernism may have done tor Anglos inrnthe past, unless they have the wit and thernwill to modify it soon, the civilizationrntheir forebears created will soon go thernway of Mr. Phillips’ shrinking Republicanrnmajorify.rnIn Memory of One of the Better Onesrnby Richard MoorernHe launched his presidential bidrnon a strange whiirr:rnto see if the whole Countr)”d get as sick of himrnas Georgia did.rnHe won, and down the Country slidrnwith Godly Jim,rnhis judgments catastrophic, his perceptions dim.rnGod, to be rid . . .rnbut friends, it wasn’t right to shedrnour leader thus —rnthere on our boil of state, our head,rnour crown of pus,rnthat yellow corn pone eater, that voice, toneless, deadhim?rnNo, friends, us.rn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn