Mark wrote: It should also be possible to look at Septars for this chart too.

Why not? - This is Septar 33 - it covers the years from March 2013-2020.
Most striking: the exact conj. of UR and NE in house four. Note the fact that MER and JU are aspected by that conjunction, note that JU and MER rule the four quadrants. MER, ruler of the AC at the first degree of Aries: looks like a new start - will it be a fresh start? Most important: UR/NE will probably exert its centrifugal effect on the union.
In 2017/18 NE will transit SO/SAT/IC in the basic chart - this will probably add to that development.

LL

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.

That's your opinion Mark and you're entitled to it, but unless we can show that someone else supported the colonies and otherwise they would not have existed, it seems self-evident that they were in charge of themselves. They sustained themselves without British government.

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?

I think you missed my point. Your writing suggests the USA or whatever you want to call it, did not exist unless and until England said so at the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty. Since the USA asserted its independence, set up a functioning government, and fought British troops and ultimately defeated them, the signing of the peace treaty simply ratified something that had begun six years earlier. This treaty constitutes less of a beginning but rather the acknowledgment of a defeat. It was a document of surrender, or ending of the war and acknowledging that want the colonists said in 1776 was true. The nation didn't begin then.

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?

You can make that point as often as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. It's just your opinion. What gives you the idea that there were no political Institutions in 1776? The Continental Congress was a political institution, was it not? The 13 States had political institutions. The Articles of Confederation was the working political constitution during the Revolution even though it was not formally ratified until later. There was an army, too. What else do you want? If the colonists had a functioning navy the war wouldn't have lasted 6 years. These institutions existed de facto during the Revolutionary War. You seem to believe that somehow none of this "counts," which doesn't seem to square with the facts. As I said, the USA did not disappear and re-appear when the current Constitution was adopted. To believe that is to believe that nothing of what came before matters. It is true that the USA is not the same country today that it was in 1776, but neither is any other country.

And again I don't necessarily think any 1776 chart is the only one to use, but your reasons for not using it don't seem to match up with the history. My purpose in participating with this thread is to point out the difficulties presented by limiting ourselves to national charts. If we can't agree upon the time and date when a nation began, the value of any chart selected is diluted by its partial arbitrariness.

Hi Tom,

Sorry I have taken so long to respond to you. Been a bit busy.

Mark wrote:

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.

Tom wrote:

That's your opinion Mark and you're entitled to it, but unless we can show that someone else supported the colonies and otherwise they would not have existed, it seems self-evident that they were in charge of themselves. They sustained themselves without British government.

It is not a debate of whether they sustained themselves without Britain. That is self evident. It?s more a question of whether the colonies did this as independent states or as one government. I suppose its an issue of seeing the glass half empty or full. You can certainly make a case that the since the colonies were co-operating together militarily and effectively allowing the Second Continental Congress to represent the colonies in diplomatic terms they were a cohesive political association.

It cannot be denied that that the Declaration of Independence enjoys a special place in American national identity. For example the reverse of the Great seal harks back to this year as the birth of the USA:
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html

Nevertheless, the ambiguity of whether the Declaration of Independence represents the birth of a new government or cluster of governments is clear in the work. Its true the term 'United States of America' is used for the first time. However, it meant something totally different in 1776 to the modern understanding of the term. The document makes several references to the colonies as ?independent states? . This ambuity continues even after the Articles of Confderation were ratified.

Lets take a look at the relevant part of the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Note there is no reference to an independent government, state or nation anywhere but rather 3 separate references to the former colonies as independent states. We undoubtably have a political and military coalition coordinated by the Continental Congress at this point but I think its going too far to call it a fully fledged government.

Still, The Continental congress did take upon itself the authority to declare war on Great Britain on behalf of all the colonies on July 6th 1776. Helen Boyd proposed this as a chart for the USA. It might certainly have significance for America at war:
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Nation:_USA_No.6

Despite these problems If we accept the Declaration of Independence as the key moment what date and time should be used? On July 2nd, the Congress voted to accept the document, after editing some particularly caustic paragraphs and removing others completely. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was formally accepted by the Continental Congress. It was formally signed on August 2, 1776, with some members adding their names after that date. The Declaration was printed and sent out to the colonies and to the troops after this.

So the Congress accepted the idea of Independence by voting on July 2nd. It agreed the wording of the Declaration on July 4th. But the Declaration was not signed by the members of Congress until August 2nd 1776.

If we go for July 4th as the pivotal date there is the eternal debate on which chart to adopt. Astrologers have passionately proposed a Gemini, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius rising time. Although the Sagittarius rising (Sibly) and Scorpio rising chart are the strongest candidates based on the historical evidence.

You do have a point that the Continental Congress didn't wait for the Articles of Confederation to be signed or ratified to assume its powers contained therein. The military situation dictated this.

Although it had no explicit legal authority to govern, The Second Continental Congress assumed many of the functions of a national government, such as appointing ambassadors, signing treaties, raising armies, appointing generals, obtaining loans from Europe, issuing paper money (called "Continentals"), and disbursing funds. The Congress had no authority to levy taxes, and was required to request money, supplies, and troops from the states to support the war effort. Individual states frequently ignored these requests.

Mark wrote: :

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?

Tom wrote:

I think you missed my point. Your writing suggests the USA or whatever you want to call it, did not exist unless and until England said so at the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty. Since the USA asserted its independence, set up a functioning government, and fought British troops and ultimately defeated them, the signing of the peace treaty simply ratified something that had begun six years earlier. This treaty constitutes less of a beginning but rather the acknowledgment of a defeat. It was a document of surrender, or ending of the war and acknowledging that want the colonists said in 1776 was true. The nation didn't begin then.

I am not really in disagreement with you here. I was simply trying to find generalized examples of a De jure vs De facto chart for mundane astrology. The treaty of Paris was just a possible example of de jure recognition of the American colonies. However, I can see it wasn?t a good choice. Can the Declaration of Independence be a de jure event? Perhaps I am no lawyer. It was certainly not a reflection of the de facto position at that time. Historians have estimated that the Empire loyalists or ?Tories? could have made up to a third of the population of the colonies during the revolutionary war. According to some estimates the ?patriots? or those fighting the British were also only a third of the population with another third of the population remaining neutral or ?fence-sitting?. At the very most the ?patriots? probably made up a very slim majority of the population. There is little doubt the Continental Congress was leading public opinion rather than simply reflecting it.

In terms of International recognition the American colonies were first recognised as independent states by the Kingdom of Morocco in 1777.

http://clinton6.nara.gov/2000/06/2000-0 ... cco-a.html

France formally recognized the American colonies as independent on February 6, 1778, with the signing of the Treaty of Alliance.

Mark wrote:

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?

Tom wrote:

You can make that point as often as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. It's just your opinion. What gives you the idea that there were no political Institutions in 1776? The Continental Congress was a political institution, was it not? The 13 States had political institutions. The Articles of Confederation was the working political constitution during the Revolution even though it was not formally ratified until later. There was an army, too. What else do you want? If the colonists had a functioning navy the war wouldn't have lasted 6 years. These institutions existed de facto during the Revolutionary War. You seem to believe that somehow none of this "counts," which doesn't seem to square with the facts.
As I said, the USA did not disappear and re-appear when the current Constitution was adopted. To believe that is to believe that nothing of what came before matters. It is true that the USA is not the same country today that it was in 1776, but neither is any other country.

Ok in poker terms maybe I did overplay my hand a bit. It cannot be denied the Second Continental Congress was a political institution and it did make military and political decisions on behalf of all the colonies. However, the driving impetus for greater political co-operation was determined by the military threat posed by the British.

The adoption of a Confederation did represent an interim attempt at an American government but it was extremely decentralised and gave the states lots of latitude to simply ignore the Confederation Congress if they wished. Without any tax raising powers the Confederal Congress was constantly at the mercy of the states which held the financial purse strings. This was why people like George Washington pushed for a more centralised kind of government.

Still I have never claimed 1789 represents the first government of the USA. The Confederation was clearly a move in that direction even if it was a very unsatisfactory one. I simply think that the creation of the Federal USA is very important as it represents the final form of American government that has endured for 222 years.

Up to now astrologers have looked at charts proposed for the adoption of the Articles of Confederation by the Continental Congress as the key time the Congress assumed authentic authority to govern.

For example David Solte rectified a chart for the signing of the Articles of Confederation in 1777:
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Nation:_USA_No.7

In contrast Ron Grimes has suggested a chart for the later date when the Articles of Confederation were ratified by the colonies legislatures to take effect. Ron Grimes quite correctly points out that the Articles of Confederation were not legally operative until all 13 colonies ratified them. Again though as with David Solte's chart we are having to rely on the subjectivity of a rectified chart.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Nation:_USA_No.8

You do have a point though that the Continental Congress was using the articles of Confederation from 1776-77 as its de facto operating rules even though it didn?t have the authority of the states to do this until 1st March 1781. Its interesting that this process began before the Declaration of Independence was agreed. One could make an argument for a chart before 1776 based on the first meeting of the Second Continental Congress. As an institution this body delarared war on Great Britain. It formed the Continental army and declared independence and agreed a wording for the Articles of Confederation.

Following this logic one could propose a chart for the first meeting of the Second Continental Congress on May 10th 1776, Philadelphia. I have checked the documents of the Second Continental Congress and it first convened at 10:00am.

The process of agreeing the Articles of Confederation was rather long winded:

From Wikipedia:

The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft the Articles in June 1776 and sent the draft to the states for ratification in November 1777.[2] In practice, the Articles were in use beginning in 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the national government.
On June 12, 1776, a day after appointing a committee to prepare a draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress resolved to appoint a committee of 13 to prepare a draft of a constitution for a union of the states. The final draft of the Articles was prepared in the summer of 1777 and the Second Continental Congress approved them for ratification by the states on November 15, 1777, after a year of debate. In practice, the final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation. The Articles set the rules for operations of the United States government. It was capable of making war, negotiating diplomatic agreements, and resolving issues regarding the western territories. Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual".

Its worth pointing out that the the Articles of Confederation agreed in 1781 establish the confederation with these words: "The Style of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

The Articles of Confederation go on to state the equality of the separate states with the confederation government, i.e. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

Interestingly the Articles do not call the United States of America a "nation" or "government," but instead says, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

And again I don't necessarily think any 1776 chart is the only one to use, but your reasons for not using it don't seem to match up with the history. My purpose in participating with this thread is to point out the difficulties presented by limiting ourselves to national charts. If we can't agree upon the time and date when a nation began, the value of any chart selected is diluted by its partial arbitrariness.

You have misrepresented my position Tom. Its true I have been making a case for greater use of the 1789 chart as a US government chart because it represents the kind of government followed in the US to date. I have not noticed any other astrologers out there pointing this out in contemporary astrology although Dane Rudhyar mentioned this chart too.

http://www.khaldea.com/rudhyar/aad/aad_fedchart.shtml

I know Rudhyars views carry little weight with traditional astrologers.

The Confederation represented in the Articles of Confderation was a very different creature from the modern USA. None of this means I reject charts for before 1789 I just think its very difficult to practically agree on a date/time.

I take issue with your describing the 1789 chart as just a 'national chart'. I have already pointed out it fits the traditional definition of an elected time for the foundation of a dynasty which existed long before 'national charts' were ever thought of. As I have explained at some length on this thread there is nothing 'arbitrary' about the Federal government chart. I haven't claimed that the American nation came into existence in 1789. I leave others to debate that that vexed question. What did unambiguously occur in 1789 was America's current form of government and constitution. If you dont accept the logic of this position you are welcome to reject it. That will not prevent me continuing to advocate the importance of this chart for American politics. The beauty of the USA Federal government chart is that there is no ambiguity on timing. Having said that I do still look at the Sibly chart as I think it says something about American national identity. I am open to studying the charts for the First and Second Continental Congress as well. The Boyd chart of 6th July 1776 seems interesting too although I have never looked at it in detail.

I have to ask what chart are you using? I haven't heard much from you on this? The next Presidential election is coming up so it would be useful to know. I think you were previously using the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction chart proposed by John Frawley for prior to 1776. I do think the Aries Ingress chart for 1789 is worth more study too.

Mark

Mark, Tom, and all

Here are a few comments for this thread.

Use of Multiple Mundane Charts

When studying mundane astrology one quickly reaches the conclusion that more than one chart is necessary. This is in fact the recommendation made by traditional authorities who include Great, Middle and Small Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, Eclipses, and Ingresses in the mundane stew. Though I have rectified my own July 4 1776 Regulus USA National Horoscope, I continue to use these other tools. For instance, knowing a primary theme of the May 2000 Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is resource scarcity means I consider that theme before looking at the US.

For the US, use of the 1789 Aries Ingress for the year of the presidential inauguration of George Washington is recommended as a traditional approach. I have done some brief work on this horoscope, and just as traditional authors suggest, if you try directing malefics to the luminaries one gets a laundry list of major national problems. For starters,

13-Oct-1955. PT opposition Saturn (l=SA) d. => Sun

timed Eisenhower's heart attack of 24-Sep-1955 by one month

10-Apr-1981. REG opposition Saturn c. => Sun

timed Reagan's assassination attempt of 30-Mar-1981 within 11 days.

These are the kinds of very easy tests that can be made for competing ideas yet I do not see them conducted in this thread.

Use of Multiple National Horoscopes

As to turning event charts into national horoscopes, which is what I and many others have done with the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence, we move away from traditional practice into modern mundane astrology a la Carter from the 1950s.

I have no problem with considering a variety of horoscopes for the USA including the signing of the Constitution or what have you. I would say however that for a single event on one day, such as the Declaration of Independence, there can be only one horoscope. If there is a July 4, 1776 horoscope, there is only one of them. I favor an Ascendant of 26SA54'40" and have written an entire book on it. I am an American and like many Americans, celebrate Independence day as a national holiday and consider it relevant as the nation's birthday.

While I would not argue against casting a horoscope for the signing of the Constitution, or other events, its important to remember that charts can predict only what they promise. Not every event mundane event can (or should) be produced by a single horoscope, no matter how well it performs in out of sample tests. This is important to emphasize because I find it bizarre that once a particular event occurs, people run off and say how it proves a particular USA chart is the REAL! one and others are FAKE!. As long as an event is consistent with what can be delineated from a particular chart - this is what we are after as mundane astrologers. An event might be promised by the Declaration of Independence chart, the Constitution chart, an eclipse chart, or what have you. An event might show up in one chart but not another. The fact that a particular chart cannot explain all events does not make it irrelevant!

Yet often major events do prove congruent with various horoscopes, but in ways which are more subtle than one might initially consider.

Let me give one example for the Regulus USA horoscope.

WWII

In my book I discuss timing for the outbreak of the Civil War with directions and I link WWI to the directed Ascendant in the bound of Mars/Cancer which actually did a better job at describing the isolationalist American mood when President Wilson asked for a War Declaration against Germany after winning re-election on a campaign promsie to keep America out of the war!

But I don't talk about WWII. So how does this horoscope (or does it at all) show America's involvement in this conflict?

On February 22, 1941, the directed Moon entered the bound of Mars/Leo, Primary direction: Moon's full latitude, Ptolemy's method, direct motion. Leo signifies Europe; Mars signifies war; this ties the Moon's direction through the bound of Mars/Leo to the European conflict. Start of this distribution on February 22, 1941 did not time Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) but it accurately matched Congressional approval for the Lend Lease Act on February 8, 1941 signed by Roosevelt on March 27. 1941. This was a financial aid program to Britain constructed to get around laws established following WWI designed to prevent war profiteering among arms dealers. For the Regulus USA National Horoscope, the Moon rules the 8th of debt and this was a US loan to Britain to financially support Britain's military against Hitler. In fact during the entire period of the Moon's distribution in the bound of Mars/Leo from February 22, 1941 to October 7, 1947, America was deeply involved in financing the allies through lend-lease initially and through proposal of the Marshall Plan in June 1947 and its discussion between July and September as the Distribution concluded. There may be other linkages of the horoscope to WWII but I haven't had time to consider them.

Let me conclude with another event and make a few predictions.

Capture of Osama Bin Laden - May 2, 2011.

I started looking to see if there was any dynamic activity to the lot of secret enemies or injury of some 12th house secret enemy and did not find anything convincing - though I think Mars separating from Jupiter was important; don't believe Mars applying to Jupiter could have timed the hit but this is off topic for what I want to accomplish here.

If you turn to pages 285/286 of America is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horoscope, you two Saturn-Ascendant directions with form a primary direction sequence. They are:

1-May-2011. dexter trine Saturn c. => ASC
5-May-2014. dexter trine Saturn (lat=Saturn) c. => ASC

My notation 'c.' corresponds to Gansten's 'neo-converse' notation.

Chapter 11, pps 195-212, delineates Saturn as the US dollar (among other things). Saturn/Libra signifies a supra-national currency whose exalted status eventually crashes. Using my primary direction sequence concept, for a given sequence timed by Saturn-Ascendant directions, the dollar begins strong and drops during the sequence and ends on a low. For neo-converse sequences, as #10 on page 211, the dollar begins weak and ends strong.

The Saturn-Ascendant primary direction sequence started 1-May; OBL capture is 2-May; and so far the Dollar bottomed against the Euro 4-May with today one of the largest one-day rallies in the dollar in many months.

Just as in Saturn-Ascendant #10 on page 211, the start of this Saturn-Ascendant primary direction sequence timed a major US Dollar LOW which according to the sequence concept should continue rallying to May 5, 2014 HIGH. The dollar is relevant to Bin Laden because confidence in a country from battlefield victories is often reflected in currency appreciation; I argue that Bin Laden's capture did just that and helped trigger the Dollar reversal.

There is other dynamic activity which can be considered when looking out to 2014. One other primary direction sequence relevant is a Saturn-Midheaven primary direction sequence (which can be downloaded from my site - my book limits itself to Ascendant directions):

12-Oct-2011. dex trine Saturn (l=Sat) d. => MC
4-Feb-2012. dex trine Saturn d. => MC

This sequence should begin with a strong dollar and end with a weak dollar.

Putting the two sequences together, I predict

1. Between 1-May-2011 and 12-Oct-2011 the trade weighted US dollar will stage a rally appreciating at least 20%.

2. Between 12-Oct-2011 and 4-Feb-2011. the trade weighted US dollar will decline at least 10%.

3. Between 4-Feb-2012 and May 5, 2014 the trade weighted US dollar will appreciate by more than 30%, probably in excess of 50%.

One cannot use primary directions to come up with percentages. Is is my own thinking based on a variety of inputs, some not astrological. There are also other timing techniques for Saturn in this horoscope which can add more specification to the results; and I do not think these will necessarily be one-way trades. Yet I do believe the general path of the dollar will unfold according to these chunks of time.

And for legal reasons, I have to state these are astrological forecasts and not specific trading or investment recommendations.