Being a Jeffersonian, I would tend to disagree with that statement, the factions existed long prior to any official declaration of any kind, they merely set aside some of their differences in order to focus on their ONE agreement, self rule. One could Argue that George Mason was the progenitor of the democratic party, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights which is the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. it was officially adopted by Virginia on 12 June 1776. but its foundations go back for more than a year before that. But I wont argue that because again, I'm a Jeffersonian by nature.

Now Having said all that, I could agree to the 13 May 1792 date, as it isn't based on the ideas, but on an event. One that establishes a group to which a person can join. I hadn't seen a date for Democratic party before now, and certainly not one based on anything solid. I was wondering where it was and what it was based on. This date has a reasonable argument.

I stand by my Date whine, 11/11/1111 is prone to error, especially if you read a lot or are lysdexic, etc... We are all free to write dates however we wish of course, I just choose to whine about the method I don't like. (sense of humor has been surgically attached)

Granny

I'm a Jeffersonian by nature.

Fine. I wasn't discussing political philosophy or the intellectual origins of the Democratic-Republican party formed in 1792. Like any political movement it clearly had intellectual origins reaching into the past.

However, its not the case that all supporters of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 supported the federal constitution adopted in 1789. Hence there was the debate prior to this by so called 'Federalists' and 'Anti-Federalists'. The latter opposed the centralizing tendencies of the proposed constitution. The Democratic-Republican party therefore emerged from the Federalist side of this debate. Jefferson was minister to France from 1785-89 but I assume he strongly supported the federalist position following the experience of the ineffective Confederal constitution of 1781 (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union).

Now Having said all that, I could agree to the 13 May 1792 date, as it isn't based on the ideas, but on an event. One that establishes a group to which a person can join. I hadn't seen a date for Democratic party before now, and certainly not one based on anything solid. I was wondering where it was and what it was based on. This date has a reasonable argument.

Yes a good bit of research by Michael O'Reilly and kudos to him for that. He comes up with some good stuff. Personally, I just which he didn't rely so heavily on asteroids in his analysis of charts but each to their own.

I still think it would be interesting if there was a time for renaming of the party in 1844 although I do think the 1792 time seems very plausible. I dont know how it works against major events in the history of the party though. Worth some research I think.

I stand by my Date whine, 11/11/1111 is prone to error, especially if you read a lot or are lysdexic, etc... We are all free to write dates however we wish of course, I just choose to whine about the method I don't like. (sense of humor has been surgically attached)

You have a good general point which is valid. I am just mystified why you decided to kick off on this particular thread where it seems a complete non-issue for anyone following the thread.

Here are the the two party charts compared to the Federal Constitution chart in bi-wheels. Note that both party charts are noon charts so the angles are not timed.

Federal Constitution/The Democratic party

The Federal Constitution/The Republican Party

And take a look at this bi-wheel. Quite remarkable links to the USA Federal chart! The Pluto and Mars links are a cause for concern. Still, I suppose Obama's time in office has been dominated by the great recession and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Federal Constitution/Barack Obama

Here is another possible chart for the creation of the Democratic party I have researched.

This is for the meeting of the very first Democratic party National Convention on May 21st 1832 in Baltimore, Maryland. The chart is an untimed noon chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1832_Democ ... Convention
Here is the chart in a bi-wheel with the Federal Constitution chart.

It is often forgotten - even by US-astrolgers - that the act of declaration of independence on 4th July, 1776 (or possibly or even probably on 2nd July!) actually just meant the separation from Britain - it did not create the USA.

It must have created something if the former colonies were no longer part of Great Britain. They weren't colonies any longer. The sub title of the document reads: The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America.

Maybe we oughtn't to expect a single mundane chart to comprise anything and everything.

I agree. The number of charts used to "explain" the USA is mind boggling. They all have their merits and shortcomings. The government of the USA began with the Articles of Confederation. These were replaced with the current Constitution. The Civil War (incorrectly so labeled: civil wars are among two parties vying for control. In America's case one side was trying to leave the other) is also considered sort of a re-boot of the American experience. In the South it is still called "The War Between the States" and it has also been called the Second American Revolution. It would be some chart that could sum up all of this and, if we use the 1776 date, America is only 235 years old.

PS for history buffs and those who may not have noticed, the American Civil War began 150 years ago this month. Lots of information coming out about it.

Thanks a lot, a lot of significant points have been revealed here.
The closer I look at the chart of the Constitutuion the more I see that when looking into US-history and politics this chart should always be taken into account.
E.g. as has already been mentioned before: the murder of Kennedy or 11th Sept. 2001.
But, as Tom says, the chart of the Declaration gives insight into a mighty impulse that is still and will always be at the basis of US-American ideals and aspirations.

LL

NB: I have amended the chart for the First National Convention of the Democratic party cited above as I had previously displayed it with the wrong date.

Tom wrote;

I'm not arguing for a special case. In fact the more I see of the national charts arguments, the less value I think any of them have.

Part of the problem as I see it is that a variety of 'key moments' are given equal status as an electional chart. For example the coronation of a King (England 1066), the seizing of power by revolution or coup ( e.g. Russia 1917) or an announcement of a new regime (China 1949). Underlying this is the contrast between power changing de facto or de jure.

When did the 13 colonies become independent from Great Britain? One could argue with the Declaration of Independence but ultimately de facto independence was only established with the surrender of British forces in North America at Yorktown on the 17th of October 1781. In legal terms de jure or legal independence for the colonies was only established on the 3rd September 1783 when the Treaty of Paris recognised the colonies as independent states.

In medieval astrology astrologers like Abu 'Mashar looked at the ingress or Jupiter-Saturn conjunction prior to a dynasty taking power. This approach can be very useful as it avoids interminable arguments over which 'key moment' is more important. In contrast many 'national charts' are controversial. The most famous example of this must be the various times for the American 1776 chart.

In the medieval period there was obviously no such thing as legal constitutional arrangements. 'Regime change' could only happen by military means or death of the monarch. All power was therefore effectively de facto. I would argue that when a country undertakes a fundamental change in its government structures represented by a new constitution this is the equivalent of what medieval astrologers would understand as a new dynasty. In terms of what stage is more important ie signing, ratification or de facto implementation I would tend to favour the latter. From a political perspective the date of implementation is when the new state arrangements take effect.

Tom wrote:

Your observations about the timeline for government of the USA are accurate, but beg the most important question: Just what is a national chart supposed to show?

Probably not as much as most astrologers would like! In terms of electional charts I favour constitutional charts as the most reliable as these can usually be precisely timed. Hence I see the Federal Constitution chart of 1789 informing about American political institutions and culture from 1789 to date. I think what we can gleam on national character is fairly limited from any one chart. We can only really , look to the placement of the Moon and the ruler of the ascendant. We can perceive how America is perceived abroad and through the houses see the nation's potential as a social, economic and political entity.

Tom wrote:

The government established in 1789 and running more or less continuously since (everyone forgets the Civil War sort of interrupted that. Do the Confederate States of America have a different chart than the rest of the country that began with the surrender at Appomattox?)

I hadn't forgotten it. However, the Confederate States of America was defeated so the federal constitution emerged unscathed at a very bloody cost indeed. In many ways the southern states were seeking to reverse the centralizing effect of constitution of 1789 and return to the much looser association of sovereign states found in the Articles of Confederation. Ironically, this was one of the reasons for the South's ultimate defeat as the Confederate government in Richmond was too weak and lacked the power to co-ordinate a unified war effort between all the states. Nicholas Campion proposes a chart for the Confederate States of America (CSA) in his Book of World Horoscopes.

Tom wrote:
According to Nicholas Campion

''The Confederate States of America began their formal existence at 12:00 noon LMT on 4th February, 1861 in Montgommery Alabama'' Book of World Horoscopes, p375

Here is the chart:
The US constiution has also had many amendments. Not least the 1st to 10th amendment passed in 1791 and the 13th amendment abolishing slavery in 1865. However, while these have broadened the vision of the original document it is still recognizably part of a political arrangement dating from 1789.

Tom wrote:

Once we determine what the chart is supposed to show, then we must decide if one chart can show all that. I don't think so.

I have sympathy for that view. I have already stated this several times on the forum and quoted articles by the the Irish astrologer Bill Sheeran who puts forward this view quite strongly. However, in my opinion not every incident in a nations history are of equal importance. Some carry far more weight than others. The implementation of the Federal Constitution on March 4th 1789 is such a key event.

Tom wrote:

This is the problem with the current state of mundane astrology. Astrologers, even armed with computers that make calculation quick, accurate and painless, are looking for the the one chart that explains it all perfectly and preferably with transits alone. I don't think that's possible.

Well if my support for the the 1789 chart were simply based on transit hits I would agree. However, in the case the chart undeniably is important. I dont need to perform rectification cartwheels to make a convincing case for its acceptance. This is a case where the astrology must follows what is a fundamental change in American political institutions and culture.

Your right that much of contemporary modern astrology is not very thorough. Yes there is too much reliance on transits and secondary progressions. These dont necessarily mean that much without the context of wider cycles. I would like to see more use of profections, firdaria and primary directions in mundane astrology. On the other hand I dont see many traditional astrologers doing much of real significance either. The fault does not just lie with modern astrologers. I wish traditionalists would put half as much effort into their analysis of real charts as they do criticising modern mundane astrology. Its easy but not very enlightening to keep claiming things were done much better in medieval and renaissance times. To paraphrase the Quakers I think traditionalists should adopt the line 'better to light one candle, than curse the darkness'.

Tom wrote:

Even if it is possible, looking at the thread there is very little agreement on the time of day of any chart even after there is agreement on the date.

Really? I thought it was pretty clear. The time the constitution took effect is not in question ie 00:00 on March 4th 1789. There has been discussion of whether we could identify separate charts for the House of Representatives, Senate and Presidency. However, there are no specific times for any of these as far as I am aware. Although the first Presidential inauguration is within a fairly tight timescale. I have already explained I do look at the Presidential chart too.

In fact far more energy is spent arguing chart validity than there is on actually using the damn things for their intended purpose - prediction.

True but if you cant agree where to start you cant predict! I am not claiming to have found the holy grail with the 1789 chart. However, in my opinion it is one of the strongest candidates we have to analyse American politics astrologically.

If July 4 1776 is of immense importance as the inception of something, the chart has validity.

In reply I will offer a quote from Ron Grimest:

The Declaration of Independence is clearly a "divorce" decree that our founding fathers handed mother England. It lays out very well a list of our grievances against England, along with a statement that we are now a free and independent people. However, no where does it address the formation of a new nation, nor the laws by which it would operate. There is no more wisdom in using the Declaration of Independence as the birth of our nation than there would be in using a divorce date as the birth of a subsequent marriage.

I realise I am swimming against the tide for most Americans. 1776 is so ingrained into the myth of American identity that most American astrologers inevitably seek to provide an astrological justification for it in defining American identity and history. From a traditional basis though I dont see how it can be argued to constitute a legitimate basis for a chart for the government of the modern USA.

To quote the medieval authority Benjamin Dykes:

The same goes for so-called ?birth charts? of nations. There are only a few known electional charts for cities, as for example that of the founding of Baghdad. Otherwise, we use the Aries ingress chart prior to the date the government is complete and the king ascends the throne. So for instance, the chart for the United States of America is not July 4, 1776, since there was not even a complete government or true nation to speak of at that time. The interim Articles of Confederation had yet to be thought of. The USA chart is the Aries ingress for 1789, the year of Washington?s inaugural. The same goes for changes in dynasties and forms of government: ingress charts for Baghdad show both the fall of the monarchy and the fall of Saddam Hussein, even though they are not cast like electional charts for the moment of an oath of office or the signing of a document.

Here is the chart for the Aries Ingress of 1789.
As Bejamin Dykes states Washington's inaugural was not until April 1789. Equally, the House of Representatives and Senate did not form a quorum allowing them to elect officers until April 1789. Its interesting the Aries ingress chart has Scorpio rising (a recurrent theme in many charts for US government) just like the Federal constitution chart.

In terms of political institutions the first Continental Congress was the ancestor of later federal government and represents a decisive move towards poltical cooperation amongst the 13 colonies. Here is the chart for the first meeting.
Its interesting that the angles of this chart closely resemble the Scorpio rising chart proposed for the 4th of July 1776. Coincidence? Could astrologers be picking up the resonance of the continental Congress chart rather than a Scorpio rising chart for the 4th of July? The Continental Congress has interesting connections to the Federal Constitution chart with the focus shifting from planets in similar degrees of Pisces rather than Virgo.

The charts are very interesting to compare with each other. I have put together this Bi-Wheel with the First Continental Congress in the inner wheel and the Federal Constitution chart on the outer wheel.
Mark

When did the 13 colonies become independent from Great Britain? One could argue with the Declaration of Independence but ultimately de facto independence was only established with the surrender of British forces in North America at Yorktown on the 17th of October 1781. In legal terms de jure or legal independence for the colonies was only established on the 3rd September 1783 when the Treaty of Paris recognised the colonies as independent states.

Not true unless we believe that the colonists obeyed King George and Parliament until the Treaty of Paris. American independence was a fact (de facto) before England signed the peace treaty. That wasn't a gift from England. They lost the war and hadn't governed the colonies in several years. De jure independence was the result of a defeat in war, it post dated de facto independence. Your position seems to be that independence did not occur until Britain said so. Results on the battlefield and in the halls of American government said otherwise.

From July 4 1776 on the the United States governed themselves. Had the colonies lost the conflict, things would be different, but they didn't. From that date to this, the USA has been a self sustaining entity even if it changed its form of government. The USA did not disappear and reappear in 1789. One form of government was replaced by another. The nation's existence continued uninterrupted.

In fact July 4, 1776, is the absolute latest date that we can say the USA became an independent nation. When you open fire on the King's troops, as was done in April 1775, and the King's troops don't immediately put down the rebellion and instead the rebels set up a government that is never toppled by the King, de facto independence and government is established then. From that point on the King's wishes were ignored. Then, by the rule of inception that everyone follows, the chart is established. Subsequent charts of important events, should logically be subservient to that chart. Otherwise we have a free-for-all which, come to think of it, is a pretty good description of the current state of mundane astrology.

However in the case of the USA, we have no universally agreed upon time and never will. So I still wonder if this is the best way? Astrologers have been using national charts extensively since about 1950. Have they done noticeably better than their predecessors? To me all this haggling over which time this or that really happened shows the futility of this method.

Not true unless we believe that the colonists obeyed King George and Parliament until the Treaty of Paris. American independence was a fact (de facto) before England signed the peace treaty.

That wasn't a gift from England. They lost the war and hadn't governed the colonies in several years. De jure independence was the result of a defeat in war, it post dated de facto independence. Your position seems to be that independence did not occur until Britain said so. Results on the battlefield and in the halls of American government said otherwise.

Yes I agree didn't you notice my reference to the defeat of the British at Yorktown above being the De facto defeat of the British in North America?
The issue was resolved as an International legal dispute with Great Britain at the Treaty Of Paris. However, the newly independent colonies already had French and Spanish recognition and military support.

From July 4 1776 on the the United States governed themselves. Had the colonies lost the conflict, things would be different, but they didn't. From that date to this, the USA has been a self sustaining entity even if it changed its form of government. The USA did not disappear and reappear in 1789. One form of government was replaced by another. The nation's existence continued uninterrupted.

Prior to to 1789 it would be more accurate to discuss the former colonies as 'entities' rather than one unitary state. So I cannot accept your assertion that the USA was some kind of 'self sustaining entity' from 1776 onwards. The complete sovereignty and independence retained by the states is the main reason the Confederal government was too weak to function effectively. The Articles of Confederation were clearly an attempt at an American government. However, it was completely superceded by the settlement of 1789. This wasn't just a re-labelling exercise. The whole model of American government was revolutionized. You seem to be seeking the earliest seed moment whereas I prefer the chart for the model of government used by the USA for the last 222 years. As I mention below that is probably because you are seeking a full blown 'national chart' whereas I am settling for a more modest electional chart for US government. The former is something recognized in traditional astrology whereas I think the idea of a chart for a 'nation' is a modern idea.

In fact July 4, 1776, is the absolute latest date that we can say the USA became an independent nation. When you open fire on the King's troops, as was done in April 1775, and the King's troops don't immediately put down the rebellion and instead the rebels set up a government that is never toppled by the King, de facto independence and government is established then. From that point on the King's wishes were ignored. Then, by the rule of inception that everyone follows, the chart is established. Subsequent charts of important events, should logically be subservient to that chart. Otherwise we have a free-for-all which, come to think of it, is a pretty good description of the current state of mundane astrology.

I dont know how many times this point has to be made but the USA did not exist in 1776. That is an unavoidable political fact. Can a nation exist without any political institutions? Perhaps if its had a prior existence yes. However, I think I see where the root of our disagreement stems from. You are looking for a chart for the American nation. I am not. I am looking for a chart for contemporary American government. I can see why 1776 is so important to those seeking to find the seed moment of the American nation.

Perhaps there is a difference between the post-colonial states in the Americas and the Old world states. For most old world countries it enough to find a chart describing their current constitution and governmental institutions. Americans and possibly other post-colonials want more. They want a chart that sums up the birth of their nation. Thats often a tall order so no wonder there is usually no consensus on the right chart.

To me all this haggling over which time this or that really happened shows the futility of this method.

Which makes your passionate defence that a 1776 chart must be right a bit hard to understand .

Having examined the chart of the constitution in detail by making use of both secondary and tertiary progressions I am now convinced that this chart covers a great deal of US history - past and present.
One question, however, remains:
"True solar time" or "mean solar time? The difference can amount to up to 14 minutes. As far as I know mean solar time came into use not until the railway companies had to plan their timetables. True?
Regards,
LL

Having examined the chart of the constitution in detail by making use of both secondary and tertiary progressions I am now convinced that this chart covers a great deal of US history - past and present.

Hopefully we can use it productively to make predictions too! There is more than enough hindsight astrology around. Still, I think it serves a role here in establishing the validity of this as a radical chart for US government.

In regards predictive techniques I have looked at this chart with Solar arcs too and they are very reflective of many key events. I intend to give more time to profections, firdaria, solar returns and eclipses with this chart. It should also be possible to look at Septars for this chart too.

The question of what are key events in US history is another interesting issue. People tend to think of assasinations, wars , peace treaties or terrorist attacks involving the government. However, other key events are less dramatic but still very important such as legal or governmental developments like the creation of the US Treasury dept, or the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. We also tend to ignore events of major economic significance such as the completion of the Trans-Continental Railway line linking the US to the Pacific coast. I think I might create a chronology tool for astrologers to work with. It would be useful to test out any proposed chart for the USA with.

Mark