Hi Tom,

I ought to make something clear that probably is anyway. I am not an expert in mundane astrology. Every now and then I drop it entirely, but then I read something that interests me and I go back. to it. So as Mark points out, what I'm saying is not how he understands mundane astrology. I am not surprised that there are knowledgeable people that look at it a whole lot differently than I do.

I am clearly no expert either. Its just I mastered in American history so this subject combines two interests of mine. My point was more of a genuine question than any attempt to undermine this approach. I am really curious how the medieval astrologers would have done this. I know lots of astrologers work with grand conjunction charts for financial astrology. Equally, I think they do have a solid background in mundane astrology. Its using them as long term national indicators I am unfamiliar with. However, there are no doubt numerous ideas in traditional astrology I am totally unaware of so thats hardly a decisive argument. Also maybe Frawley is just innovating here with a 'lets suck it and see' approach.

While I have no particular beef with Sibley or his chart, particularly since it is the July 4 chart that I like, I am also sick of July 4 charts. I do not see for the life of me, regardless of the number of "hits" to a respective chart, how objective people can depict the American character as either, Gemini Sagittarius or Scorpio. And those are just three charts. The overall character can't be "all of the above." So the approach Frawley took interested me because it did put aside those considerations, and gave me something fresh to work with and it seems to work pretty well even with Arabian parts. I"ll give some examples another time.

Maybe the approach of using a timed chart does seem a bit reductionist. A nation is not a person so describing its character with any one chart is problematic and maybe a little facile. Still thats the approach by most mundane astrologers. I am more interested to see if a chart responds to key historical events rather than than encapsulating something as mysterious as 'national character'. Although I think the Sagittarous rising chart does quite well on both fronts. Incidentally, for those wanting an objective analysis of the competing American charts I highly recommend 'The Book of World Horoscopes' by Nicholas Campion. Its a fantastic book and well worth the investment for any astrologer wanting to look at mundane astrology.

Of course even having timed national charts is no nirvana. In the United Kingdom, for example we have charts for 1066 (England), 1707 (England ,Wales and Scotland) , 1801 (England & Wales, Scotland & Ireland) , 1922 & 1927 ( United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland). Even when astrologers have timed charts they often cannot agree so its hardly surprising there is so much controversy over the American chart.

The conjunction was in Aries so it is a good beginning chart and of course anyone can use any chart he or she desires to make whatever point he or she wishes to make. I just think this one is interesting.

Fair enough. I will look forward to seeing your points on the parts/lots especially as I haven't used those much. Personally, though I am still interested in exploring more Ingress charts. I have been giving more thought to Ben Dykes point earlier. I think even using his own criteria waiting for the inauguration of Washington in 1801 is too late. The American government took shape in late 1788 with the ratification of the articles of confederation. Equally, the first US President George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789.

One argument that favours a Sagittarius rising chart for the 4th of July is that the Sibley chart appears in print just a few years after the Declaration of Independence. The same cannot be said for any of the competing charts around 1776. Although many historians would point out the Declaration was actually first signed pn July 2nd and then resigned two days later. Still , as a Freemason Sibley no doubt had connections to Freemasonary sources in the US so there is more hope his data might be be fresher in people's minds for July 4th.

Nicholas Campion makes the interesting point in his book that although the Sibley chart time is arguably close to the signing of the Declaration of Independence Sibley may have selected the Sagittarius rising chart for an additional reason. In particular the Cancer Ingress of 1776 has Sagittarius rising.

Hi Tom,

I ought to make something clear that probably is anyway. I am not an expert in mundane astrology. Every now and then I drop it entirely, but then I read something that interests me and I go back. to it. So as Mark points out, what I'm saying is not how he understands mundane astrology. I am not surprised that there are knowledgeable people that look at it a whole lot differently than I do.

I am clearly no expert either. Its just I mastered in American history so this subject combines two interests of mine. My point was more of a genuine question than any attempt to undermine this approach. I am really curious how the medieval astrologers would have done this. I know lots of astrologers work with grand conjunction charts for financial astrology. Equally, I think they do have a solid background in mundane astrology. Its using them as long term national indicators I am unfamiliar with. However, there are no doubt numerous ideas in traditional astrology I am totally unaware of so thats hardly a decisive argument. Also, maybe Frawley is just innovating here with a 'lets suck it and see' approach.

While I have no particular beef with Sibley or his chart, particularly since it is the July 4 chart that I like, I am also sick of July 4 charts. I do not see for the life of me, regardless of the number of "hits" to a respective chart, how objective people can depict the American character as either, Gemini Sagittarius or Scorpio. And those are just three charts. The overall character can't be "all of the above." So the approach Frawley took interested me because it did put aside those considerations, and gave me something fresh to work with and it seems to work pretty well even with Arabian parts. I"ll give some examples another time.

Maybe the approach of using a timed chart does seem a bit reductionist. A nation is not a person so describing its character with any one chart is problematic and maybe a little facile. Still thats the approach by most mundane astrologers. I am more interested to see if a chart responds to key historical events rather than encapsulating something as ineffable and mutable as 'national character'. As you suggest, historical developments like the creation of a nation are not a single event but an unfoldiing process. Still, key historical landmarks do seem to create a resonance that can be picked up astrologically.

I think the Sagittarius rising chart does quite well on both picking up national events and reflecting aspects of American character. Thats not to say its the only valid chart for the USA. For those like Tom, thorougly sick of July 4th charts this article is interesting:

http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resour ... asp?ID=120

Incidentally, a very good objective analysis of the competing American charts is contained in the excellent book 'The Book of World Horoscopes' by Nicholas Campion. Its a fantastic book and well worth the investment for any astrologer wanting to look at mundane astrology.

Even when you get accurately timed national charts its no nirvana. In the United Kingdom, for example we have charts for 1066 (England), 1707 (England ,Wales and Scotland) , 1801 (England & Wales, Scotland & Ireland) , 1922 & 1927 ( United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland). Its therefore hardly surprising there is so much controversy over the American chart.

The conjunction was in Aries so it is a good beginning chart and of course anyone can use any chart he or she desires to make whatever point he or she wishes to make. I just think this one is interesting.

Fair enough. I will look forward to seeing your points on the parts/lots especially as I haven't used those much. Personally, though I am still interested in exploring more Ingress charts. I have been giving more thought to Ben Dykes point earlier. I think even using his own criteria waiting for the inauguration of Washington DC in 1800 is too late. The American constitution took shape in late 1788 with the ratification of the articles of confederation. Equally, the first US President George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789.

The latter chart could be said to be the 'US Presidential chart'. Since we have a very accurate time for this chart it seems a key one to compare against the candidates for the forthcoming Presidential election. It provides one of the very few accurately timed charts we have: April 30, 1789, New York, NY between 12:40 and 12:45 p.m. LMT. Source: Campion, "Book of World Horoscopes,". I haven't known about this chart long so I have had no time to try it out yet. However, I plan to have a look at it in regards previous presidential races and key historical events.

Another chart I am looking at is the US Federal Government chart. There are differerent dates depending on whether this is timed from the date the constitution was signed, the last ratification by state or its de facto date in law. So far I am finding the chart for the signing of the federal constitution the most powerful.

Getting back to 1776 though one point I think adds support to a Sagittarius rising chart for the 4th of July is that the Sibley chart appears in print just a few years after the Declaration of Independence. The same cannot be said for any of the competing charts around 1776. Some historical sources also support a final signing late in the afternoon of July 4th. Moreover, as a Freemason Sibley probably had connections to Freemasonary sources in the US so there is some likelihood his chart might accuately reflect the data fresh in people's minds for July 4th.

Nicholas Campion makes the interesting point in his book that although the Sibley chart time is arguably close to the signing of the Declaration of Independence Sibley may have selected the Sagittarius rising chart for an additional reason. In particular the Cancer Ingress of 1776 has Sagittarius rising.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that despises the Sibley Chart.

Tom wrote:It can be argued that the USA sprang into existence on July 4, 1776 ,at one time of day or another, but the USA is more than her independence.

I don't see how that argument works. No USA existed at the time of the Declaration of Independence, nor was it intended that a USA should exist. I always urge people to read only that copy of Declaration of Independence posted on the national archives site. The reason is that people confuse the phrase "...these united States..." with the mythical nonexistent phrase "...these United States..." that often appears in altered texts.

Jefferson states no less than three times that each of the 13 colonies "ought to be free and independent States." It?s more than obvious that the creators and signors of the Declaration had no intent to create a single independent state/country.

The truth is that the colonies fought and quarreled amongst themselves constantly bickering over this and that. If any nationalism existed, it was to Britain, or to the colony, but not to the colonies as a whole.

PBS has a documentary series that de-mythicizes the "revolution? at least a little. It isn't as good as the detailed evidence available at university, but it's better than the propaganda and self-loving flag-waving in high school texts.

Tom wrote:Kennedy?s death had both significant social and political consequences. Politically, US Senator Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 knowing he would be soundly defeated out of sympathy for the dead President. For reasons too lengthy to go into here, Goldwater?s defeat was turned into Republican Party control of the White House for 28 of the last 40 years.

1964 to 2008 is 44 years, so that's 28 out of 44, and since it's a two-party system, it's statistically valid, and even 28 out of 40 is statistically valid. There's nothing devious or ominous there.

Tom wrote:Today it is estimated that fully 80% of Americans, most of whom were too young to recall, if they were even alive, the events of 1963, that believe Kennedy was killed as part of a larger conspiracy that included high government officials and/or the heads of foreign governments.

It was a conspiracy as the evidence points to it, and to members of the Democrat Party as the principals who set the conspiracy in motion. The House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion that the body of evidence suggests conspiracy.

The evidence for conspiracy is over-whelming, and the most important evidence is that Oswald could not have fired the "three shots" and no one has ever replicated his marksmanship skills. Even I can't, and I was an expert on numerous military weapons.

Tom wrote:I know this post makes me sound a bit of a dog with a bone but I am still really uncomfortable with the idea that any 'base chart' for 1762 should be focused on Washington DC. A Philadelphia based chart makes far more sense.

I agree, that's way off base and I see no way to possibly justify it.

Tom wrote:While I have no particular beef with Sibley or his chart, particularly since it is the July 4 chart that I like, I am also sick of July 4 charts. I do not see for the life of me, regardless of the number of "hits" to a respective chart, how objective people can depict the American character as either, Gemini Sagittarius or Scorpio. And those are just three charts.

That Sagittarius is the USA Ascendant there is no doubt whatsoever. Freedom is the national character and is still the image, or the ?face? that the US projects to the rest of the world. If you want to argue that the image has become corrupted (you'll get no argument from me there) or is abused or duplicitous, you?re certainly free to do so, and you would be supported astrologically.

A century after the election of Washington, the ?face of freedom? still struck fear in the hearts of monarchs worldwide. If you read the papal bull Humanus Genus by Pope Leo XII, it?s a condemnation of Freemasons in the US, but it?s also thinly veiled blistering, scathing attack on the US, its government and on the American people. How dare you elect your government? How dare you even think you have the right to elect your government?

He was a bitter old man. Garibaldi, taking his lead from the US, had recently united the Italian city-states into one country, now called Italy, and had confiscated the remaining papal estates, leaving Pope Leo with just one square mile of land for Vatican City.

When rectifying a chart, the transits of the outer or generational planets (Uranus ? Neptune ? Pluto) must match both historical events (or personal events for a personal chart) and the houses in the natal chart.

If Sagittarius is on the Ascendant, that puts Pluto in the 9th House of law, philosophy and religion during the 1950?s and 1960?s? What was happening? Civil rights court cases, desegregation, and civil rights laws. The attitude of Americans with respect to race is changing, white churches are reaching out to black churches, and even the attitude of Americans with respect to religion is also changing. There?s Vatican II and so on. The 9th House also governs long distance travel, including space travel. Do I have to mention Sputnik, Yuri Gregarin, Alan Sheppard and the Apollo space program? Regular long distance overseas passenger flights? Those transformations were the handiwork of Pluto.

Divorce rates in the US skyrocket in the 1970s. Should have seen it coming. The Woodstock Generation was born with Uranus in Gemini in the 7th House. Does that guarantee divorce? No, but Pluto in the 9th means they won't attach a stigma to divorce like previous generations did. And when Uranus moves into the 8th House, Pluto is still in the 9th House, and now you have a generation that no longer attaches a stigma to bankruptcy like previous generations did.

To look at the USA Chart objectively, requires not just looking at the Ascendant, but at the transits of the outer planets, and the progressions and directions as well. History and astrology justify a Sagittarius Ascendant for the US.

MarkC wrote:I think the Sagittarius rising chart does quite well on both picking up national events and reflecting aspects of American character. Thats not to say its the only valid chart for the USA. For those like Tom, thorougly sick of July 4th charts this article is interesting

I agree, I got sick of it a long time ago. I think you can chalk it up to ethnocentrism and romanticism.

Consider the case of South Korea. In casting its natal chart, the birth place is Washington DC, specifically in a basement office of the US State Department. A bunch of bureaucrats sitting around munching on sandwiches and drinking coffee around midnight isn't very glamorous or romantic.

At one time I had over 3,000 US natal charts cast with dates between January 1781 and December 1789 based on more than 100 historical events in the US and oddly, nearly all had Sagittarius rising. Those events were important in US history, although the events are not necessarily romantic or glamorous or even well known to the average Joe.

One of the US charts I toyed with was the "Acceptance Chart," dated September 13, 1788 at Federal Hall in New York City. On that day, the Congress of the Articles of Confederation voted to formally acknowledge and accept the recently ratified US Constitution as the supreme governing document, and directed that dates be set for election of a new Congress and President in accordance with the ratification provisions (ie under contract law that would demonstrate performance on a contract). That vote occurred "just before lunch." The Congress could have rejected the constitution and initiated a coup, and historically that has happened in other countries, but they didn't.

Lo and Behold! Upon erecting the chart for noon to begin rectification, Sagittarius was sitting the Ascendant. Try as I might, I just couldn't get the chart to work. Had Sagittarius rising, excellent fit with outer planets, fairly good progressions and directions, but it collapsed when looking at historical events. Solar Returns didn't work very well and neither did transits nor midpoints, so I gave up on it.

But, it does show that other charts, and other charts with Sagittarius rising are certainly possible.

MarkC wrote:A nation is not a person so describing its character with any one chart is problematic and maybe a little facile. Still thats the approach by most mundane astrologers. I am more interested to see if a chart responds to key historical events rather than encapsulating something as ineffable and mutable as 'national character'.

Every government on this planet is "of the people, by the people, for the people" regardless of the type of government.

If a people willingly accept tyranny, what does that say about their "national character?" If a people rebel against tyranny or even rebel against democracy, what does that say about their "national character?" If a people use other means such as civil disobedience or boycotts and what not, what does that say about their "national character?"

It says a lot.

"National character" is not rigid. It does change slightly over time. Even in personal charts you can watch the changes in people's attitudes, philosophy, goals, ideas, values and personality change as the chart progresses.

MarkC wrote:Another chart I am looking at is the US Federal Government chart. There are differerent dates depending on whether this is timed from the date the constitution was signed, the last ratification by state or its de facto date in law. So far I am finding the chart for the signing of the federal constitution the most powerful.

There are processes for constitutions. Typically formulation, formalization, ratification, adoption and performance. In some historical cases, the signing of a constitution was also simultaneously the ratification and adoption of the constitution.

Look at the constitution of the USSR, beautiful, and superior to the US constitution in every way, except there was never any performance. Sections were suspended, ignored or not enforced, making it a worthless piece of paper. The US constitution would be equally worthless without performance.

MarkC wrote:Getting back to 1776 though one point I think adds support to a Sagittarius rising chart for the 4th of July is that the Sibley chart appears in print just a few years after the Declaration of Independence. The same cannot be said for any of the competing charts around 1776. Some historical sources also support a final signing late in the afternoon of July 4th. Moreover, as a Freemason Sibley probably had connections to Freemasonary sources in the US so there is some likelihood his chart might accuately reflect the data fresh in people's minds for July 4th.

Yes, indeed, and what a great way to propagandize and scare the masses of people into accepting the unfolding events as "the inevitable."

I think during WW II the Brits tried to use astrology as propaganda to show that Hitler was doomed or something like that.

Hi Yossarian

That Sagittarius is the USA Ascendant there is no doubt whatsoever. Freedom is the national character and is still the image, or the ?face? that the US projects to the rest of the world. If you want to argue that the image has become corrupted (you'll get no argument from me there) or is abused or duplicitous, you?re certainly free to do so, and you would be supported astrologically.

You might want to check out this thread in the natal forum where we are discussing rival charts for the USA especially the Scorpio rising chart:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3260

If you are sick of rectified charts and differing times have you tried the Federal government chart for 00.00 on 4/03/1789. Set for Philadelphia?
I think that is one of the very few charts with a precise time and no dissenting views.

I had thought the Inauguration of George Washington on 30/04/1789 was also very reliable ( 12.40-12.45pm according to Campion). However, I have come across other primary sources indicating slightly later ie 1.00pm. Still as far as rectifications go its a piece of cake compared to the 4th of July!

I wouldn't personally use any of the Articles of Confederation charts for reasons I have set out in some detail on the other thread I provided the link to.

If we are going to stick with 1776 as a key seed moment I think there are 4 criteria for accepting a mundane chart:

1 Historical evidence (most crucial)
2 Responding to transits, progressions, returns, eclipses etc
3 Matching the general perception of that country
4 If no astrological/historical consensus using the Ingress chart closest to the event.

Historical evidence
The evidence is contradictory but the Gemini Rising and Pisces rising charts can be ruled out. They are simply refuted by the historical evidence. The whole myth of the Gemini rising chart is an interesting subject that tells us more about astrologers than actual history. While some have suggested a Virgo (morning) or Libra rising (lunch) chart the balance of historical sources supports the declaration being finally agreed in the afternoon or late afternoon. This leaves us with a Scorpio or Sagittarius rising chart. Campion has suggested the Continental Congress may well have met in the morning to discuss progress, set up a committee to report back later in the day and got on with other business. When that group reported back in the afternoon a final draft of the document was agreed and voted on.

Sibly's chart was the only one to appear in print anywhere near the actual events. That doesn't prove its authentic but it does give additional support for a Sagittarius rising chart. Ebenezer Sibly's chart was first published in 1780. Sibly included this strange but fascinating "chart" as an engraving in his book, The Celestial Science of Astrology. It simply states, "4th July, 10H 10M P.M., 1776," with no place specified. However, the angles seem to support this assessment of it being focused on London. Of course there was no EST or firm US capitol in Sibly's day and as America was still fighting for its independence from 'Mother England' its not surprising he sited the chart for the epicentre of the empire in London.

If you prefer deeper and more esoteric explanations here is a thought provoking article by Ed Kohout on Sibly's chart and its alleged links to Masonic ideas. According to Kohout, Sibly as a Freemason, may have been more guided in creating an idealised chart based on his masonic philosophical ideas and was not seeking to represent an actual moment in time the way a normal chart is supposed to represent. His article has some very useful extracts from Sibly's book and charts from it. Frankly, I do find some of the content too far out for me at times and a little meandering. Nevertheless some stimulating and insightful suggestions. For example, Kohout explores the paradox of why Sibly's chart seems to have angles for 5.10pm but planetary positions seem to be for 4.50pm. Did Sibly just make an error or was there a deeper meaning behind this incongruity? Kohout, also looks into some fixed star links to the Sibly chart. As he explains moderns look to outer planets Sibly would have almost certainly have considered fixed stars.

http://edkohout.com/mundane/sibly-1.html

http://www.edkohout.com/mundane/sibly-2.html

http://edkohout.com/mundane/sibly-3.html

http://edkohout.com/mundane/sibly-4.html

Its written from a similar perspective to David Ovason's book 'The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital : The Masons and the Building of Washington, D.C.'' If you liked that your sure to love this article too.


Responding to transits, progressions, returns, eclipses etc
Every astrologer has evidence to back up their chart. Its rather depressing actually that such totally different charts can all be defended in this way. Moreover, astrologers will be working in totally different ways to assess charts.

Matching the USA national character
I am most convinced by the Sagittarius rising chart here. The Scorpio rising may reflect elements of the federal government but I have a really hard time accepting this as the personna of the USA national chart overall. The Libra rising chart has some arguments in its favour here too not least with the USA most commonly perceived through the glitter of Hollywood worldwide. Gemini rising has some attraction too but its completely discredited by the lack of any historical support.

Ingress chart
The traditional approach is to turn to an Ingress chart when there is no clear historical date/time to work with. The nearest Ingress to 04/07/1776 is the Cancer Ingress (set for Philadelphia). Guess what? Yes a Sag rising chart! Its very close to the rising degreee of the Sibly chart rectified by Vivian Robson for 16.50. Robson's chart is 7'40 Sagittarius rising while the Ingress chart is 8'11. In the absence of any astrological consensus or clear historical proof I will go for a Sagittarius rising chart. It has an astrological validity in the absence of an actual time for the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It?s more than obvious that the creators and signors of the Declaration had no intent to create a single independent state/country.

I don't necessarily agree. If your right why did they go ahead and do just that by passing the Articles of Confederation only 16 months later in 1777 at the Continental Congress? Ok it was a very decentralised model of government. The separate states still retained a considerable amount of autonomy. In reality it proved unworkable because too much power rested with the states and too little with the confederal government. However, from 1781 the USA was clearly a nation state. Although more like a decentralised Canada or Switzerland in political culture than the modern federal American state. The inherent flaws in the Articles of Confederation meant the whole model had to be revised and states had to give up more power to federal authority. A similar problem existed for the Confederate States of America during the civil war. Arguably, that was a major reason why the south lost the war. Still nobody has suggested the CSA was not a state.

I suppose one could argue the European Union has more authority over its current member states than the original Confederal government in the USA. However, many Europeans (especially here in Britain) are reluctant to accept we live in a European state!

I think the way some people still cling to a Gemini rising chart shows why astrologers so often undermine the craft.

The evidence is quite compelling that no one was up at 2am, it's not as though it was an urgent matter, and that Luke Broughton just invented it in the late 19th century because he liked the idea of Uranus on the ascendant.

But even now that this is known some of those who have used this chart for years still defend it.

It's akin to an astrologer ignoring a Birth Certificate with a time written on it.

lenor gize wrote:I think the way some people still cling to a Gemini rising chart shows why astrologers so often undermine the craft.

Standards and regulation. By the time polygraph operators got around to forming a professional society/organization and regulating who could or couldn't operate a polygraph, the wannabe-idiots ruined it.

lenor gize wrote:The evidence is quite compelling that no one was up at 2am.

Of course they were. They ran down to the 7-11 and got some hot dogs and Mountain Dew.

lenor gize wrote:it's not as though it was an urgent matter

You're right, it wasn't. You want proof? On June 7, Richard Lee proposed that "these united colonies ought to be free and independent states" and it was approved on July 2 and adopted on July 4. Took almost a month, and the rebellion had been under way for 18 months by that time, so no, no hurry at all.

lenor gize wrote:It's akin to an astrologer ignoring a Birth Certificate with a time written on it.

I come across a few every now and again. Nothing major, just off by a minute or two, but that ain't the same as a few years or a decade.

MarkC wrote:

It?s more than obvious that the creators and signors of the Declaration had no intent to create a single independent state/country.

I don't necessarily agree. If your right why did they go ahead and do just that by passing the Articles of Confederation only 16 months later in 1777 at the Continental Congress?

Many people don't understand it was the 13 colonies, but the 12 original colonies. Carolina had a civil war and split into north and south. And then later they re-united. And then some time later Carolina split administratively with the governor ruling in the south and his deputy in the north. Then later they re-united. And then later they split permanently by agreement into North Carolina and South Carolina. The problems were ethnic and economic.

That's important to understand, because when the Stamp Act Congress comes around, South Carolina is in, but North Carolina is out. So are three other colonies. Of the 9 colonies in the Stamp Act Congress, four of them really didn't want to be there be there in the first place.

9 years later in 1774 the rebellion starts. It's small guerrilla action until the militias get involved a year later, and then a year after that comes the Declaration.

The war goes very badly for the rebels in the beginning. In New York, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Maine there is civil war in addition to the rebellion, so you have Tories vs Rebels vs the masses (mostly sharecroppers in the south and small farmers in the north). The Continental Army was a volunteer army and there was no draft authority, while the Continental Congress had weak diplomatic powers, and both were hindrances. They realized early on that they could lose a protracted war, or lose if the Brits sent additional troops, and they wanted the power to negotiate a quick settlement. A more powerful framework than the Continental Congress was needed.

A lot of the claims of nationalism stem from the misunderstanding of two court cases, United States v. Curtiss-Wright and United States v. Lara in which the US Supreme claimed "extra-constitutional authority" existing prior to both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation:

In this theory, the original understanding of the Founders was that the Indian tribes located within the exterior boundaries of the United States would eventually assimilate and disappear, an understanding that never came to pass (for at least 560 tribes). Because of this original (mis)understanding, the Constitution is not adequate to deal with Indian affairs, creating the necessity that justifies delving into the pre-constitutional national authority ? the Indian Affairs Power ? as a means of authorizing federal plenary power in Indian affairs.

In other words, nobody factored in the native Americans, and now there's problems so what do we do? Whatever the president wants to do, because of extra-constitutionality.

If I remember right, Lara was a Civil War case involving habeas corpus. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and the 1st Amendment rights to free speech and press based on the argument of extra-constitutionality (and Bush has made the same argument).

I look at July 4th as the date of conception of the US, and just like a fetus, it undergoes development from the date of conception to the date of birth, but we don't erect natal charts on the date of conception (although some people do erect conception charts).

I suppose one could argue the European Union has more authority over its current member states than the original Confederal government in the USA. However, many Europeans (especially here in Britain) are reluctant to accept we live in a European state!

Sovereignty is control over a territory. The question is does the EU have a code of laws, and can it enforce those laws throughout its territory. If it can, then it is sovereign, but not necessarily a state. A state needs sovereignty, its own military, diplomatic power, its own currency and the power to tax.

If the EU is not a state, it certainly is evolving into one. It's just a matter of time.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state retained its sovereignty, had its own economy and own currency. The national government had no authority to tax, and no ability to enforce laws (except admiralty laws). I'm not sure how that compares to the EU, but it would seem the EU has more power, if for no other reason than it can coin its own currency, albeit not all member states use it.

If you prefer deeper and more esoteric explanations here is a thought provoking article by Ed Kohout on Sibly's chart and its alleged links to Masonic ideas.

There was a good discussion on a non-astrology forum that the Sibley Chart was a propaganda chart. If you think about it, the actual birth time of any country would be classified information, because if there's anything to astrology, then your adversaries would know your intentions, fortunes and misfortunes and be able to exploit them.

We know several presidents, Kennedy, Reagan and both Bushes, used astrology, and we were wondering which chart they were using, since the Sibley Chart is crap with a string of failed predictions like Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, and worse than that, no predictions for Libya, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq II, or Iran(?).

I'm convinced the Ascendant is Sagittarius, between 8 and 14 degrees, and the most likely date is sometime between 1785 and 1789.

I think the way some people still cling to a Gemini rising chart shows why astrologers so often undermine the craft.

The evidence is quite compelling that no one was up at 2am, it's not as though it was an urgent matter, and that Luke Broughton just invented it in the late 19th century because he liked the idea of Uranus on the ascendant.

But even now that this is known some of those who have used this chart for years still defend it.

It's akin to an astrologer ignoring a Birth Certificate with a time written on it.

Nicholas Campion makes the suggestion that the reason astrologers were so attracted to the Gemini rising chart was that following the discovery of Uranus they wanted to have this on the ascendant as the planet of revolution. So it was a kind of retrospective astrology. The myth of course is that Ben Franklin convinced the other members of the Continental Congress to sign in the middle of the night because it was astrologically more favourable.

Looking at the chart it seems quite unremarkable. All the 4th of July charts have Mercury Rx which seems a poor basis for an electional chart. However, I was reading a book by Celeste Teal recently where she defends the Gemini rising chart as the Moon is not void of course in contrast to the other 04/07/1776 charts. She is basing this on the applying trine to Mars in the Gemini rising chart. Although, anyone looking at applying aspects across the sign boundary would not consider the Moon VOC in the later Scorpio/Sagittarius rising charts as its forming an applying trine to Venus and Jupiter in Cancer using traditional moeity orbs. The traditional moeity orb for Moon-Venus is 9 1/2 degrees while for Moon-Jupiter its 10 1/2 degrees.

However, Celeste Teal does have a point. The Virgo rising chart proposed by James Boehrer and Zip Dobyns (9.36am) does have a VOC Moon using traditional moeity orbs as its forming no applying aspect either in sign or which are applying and perfect across the sign boundary. The later Virgo rising chart proposed by Ronald Howland (11.00am) just scrapes an applying aspect to Venus by 10 minutes of arc.

The point is often made by supporters of the Gemini rising chart that Evangeline Adams predicted the Wall Street Crash and WWII with this chart. I have no idea whether this is true or just a legend. However, influential early 20th century American astrologers like Evangeline Adams no doubt influenced a whole generation of American astrologers to use the Gemini rising chart. By the mid 20th century the Gemini rising chart is dominant. For example, the leading British Astrologer Charles Carter presented the Gemini rising chart as the chart for the USA in his book ''An Introduction to Political Astrology'' published in 1951.

In general terms, astrologers defend the Gemini rising chart because it is said to respond very well to transits etc. Of course that claim is is made by all astrologers for their pet 1776 chart.

Despite its total lack of historical support Michael O'Reilly states:

''Nevertheless, the Gemini Rising chart does show remarkable correlations to actual historical events''

Why might that be? Surely, the answer lies in the mutable angles used in these charts? After, all the Gemini rising chart is the mirror image of the Sibly chart. The Ascendant/Descendant and MC/IC signs are reversed in these charts.

Alternatively, if you favour the Scorpio rising chart Michael O'Reilly offers this argument to link the Gemini rising and Scorpio rising charts:

''The Gemini horoscope has an Aquarius Midheaven, the Scorpio Rising horoscope places Aquarius on the fourth house. The Gemini Rising chart has the natal Moon at 18? Aquarius, very close to the Scorpio chart's 16? Aquarius nadir. Since the Moon and 4th house cusp share nearly identical meaning and zodiacal degree, it's easy to see how these two charts can be confused with each other''.

I am a bit confused by this as surely the Gemini rising chart has a Pisces MC? Either that or Astrodatabank have made a mistake.
http://www.astrodatabank.com/nm/USA.htm#Gemini
They are using a 2.13am chart and I have also seen a 3.00am chart.

By the same logic one could make a case for the Virgo rising chart proposed by Boehrer/Dobyns here the ASC/DESC axis from the Gemini rising/Sibly chart become the MC/IC axis and the MC/IC become the ASC/DESC in the Virgo rising chart.

So despite all the different charts proposed for 4th of July there is actually quite a consensus that key events in American history seem to focus on the mutable signs within a degree range of about 7-14 degrees. That to me is testimony against a Scorpio rising chart with its fixed sign angles. However, leaving 1776 aside maybe we should look at the history first and then the predominant astrological points showing consistently rather than using the history to justify our favoured chart.

In his recent book Political Astrology Michael O'Reilly states the following in relation to the origin of the Gemini rising chart:

In the extensive section on the U.S. horoscope, Campion offers the likely explanation for how the Gemini chart became so popular. It's based on the importance of Uranus in 1776, since this planet rules revolutions and breaks from the past. In 1861 the most prominent astrologer in the U.S. was Luke Broughton, and he was of the opinion that Uranus was the "significator" for the American Revolution. The practice of that era was to put the ruling planet on the Ascendant, and since Uranus was in Gemini, Gemini became the Rising sign. As Campion writes, this horoscope was meant "as a symbolic chart which was not intended to represent a precise historical moment." Luke Broughton was Evangeline Adams' teacher, and when she became famous in the early 20th century, fans everywhere picked up on the chart she used for the U.S., which was Broughton's Gemini Rising horoscope.

More radically, in the second edition to his ''Book of World Horoscopes' Campion argues that even though its historically inaccurate the Gemini rising chart may work in the same way that astrological consultations often work even when the data turns out to be based on inacurate data. This is a similar argument to that used by Geoffrey Cornelius and introduces the concept of divination at the mundane level and the role of the astrologer as the creative mediatrix between the chart and the divine. Campion's point is that astrologers like Luke Broughton chose a significant symbolic moment just as Sibly seems to have done in linking the Sagittarius rising chart to the Cancer Ingresss.

Incidentally, I put the wrong date above for the publication of Sibly's book. It was was first published in 1787 not 1780. So it came out 11 years after the Declaration of Independence.

In regards the historical evidence when I get a bit time I will post up the main sources used to defend each of the serious contenders: ie Virgo, Libra, Scorpio and Sagittarius rising charts.

Mark

Yossarian states:

Many people don't understand it was the 13 colonies, but the 12 original colonies

.

Well I personally get your point. The general argument that there was really no United States of America in 1776 has undeniable historical validity. As you have indicated the states were declaring their separate independence together as sovereign states. Also in strict terms the Continental Congress voted for independence on July 2nd not July 4th. July 4th only relates to agreeing the wording of the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, Jefferson did such an outstanding role in drafting this that many American's believe this was the date the decision on independence was taken.

Even when the Articles of Confederation took effect in 1781 the Confederal constitution made it clear the states were still soverreign in most matters other than in foreign policy. This represented little progress on the Continental Congress.

This is why I argued strongly earlier in the thread for the focus to shift the Federal USA chart with timed data.

Still, I agree with Nicholas Campion that nations do not have a single birth chart. The formation of the USA was a process not a single event. It could be said to have began with the forming of the First Continental Congress and ended with the Federal constitution coming into place.

In that long process July 4th was a key seed moment in the formation of the USA. I therefore think its still legitimate to examine this as long as we get away from the myth that the only 'authentic' USA chart has to be based on July 4th.

There are undeniably other key moments too. For example the surrender of British forces at Yorktown. This represented the de facto end of British rule in the former American colonies and the effective end of the revolutionary war. In the wake of this event the British government resigned and King George was reluctantly convinced to sue for peace. The data for this chart is 19/10/1781. Campion times the surrender of British forces to 10.00am that day although the official ceremony came later in the day. Interestingly, this gives us a Sagittarius rising chart right on the Sibly degrees if we time it from the surrender of General Cornwallis at 10.00am that day.

Not all mundane charts require a full government in place. The moment de facto power shifts can be crucial. For example, many astrologers used the storming of the Winter Palace as the effective horoscope for the beginning of the Soviet Union. The final defeat of British military forces in America could be seen as an equally defining moment.

Thanks Mark

All very interesting. This was what i've been looking for. It's annoying that the same angles are involved in various charts.

I remember reading about the Masonic role in the Cornelius book. It seemed very significant that Sibley and many of the founding fathers were masons and choose the late pm time as a result of this.

If this is the case then i suppose we would need to find out more as to the astrological system in vogue in 1776. I recall the sibley having some well placed fixed stars. Was the void of course moon a big factor at the time and what orb was used around 1776? Does cornelius go into this i forget?

I find the campion and cornelius idea that all charts can be as effective on occasions very questionable. In my experience those who know what they are doing can spot if most charts are accurate or not. Like the sibley chart and how the more gifted astrologers say it's symbolism fits.

robin
________
Rhode Island Marijuana Dispensary