Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The USA's Charts & Chasms

I'm not a fan of the theory that countries, governments or other inanimate entities can have a birth chart attributed to them. It doesn't fit in with my own ideas of how astrology (or parts of it) might "work". But that aside, the exact moment of the birth of a nation, the United States of America, for example is far more nebulous than the exact birth time of a human being. Even human birth time causes arguments among experts - is it time of first breath, time of emergence of the child's head, or time of conception, even?

In the case of a nation, especially the USA, there are so many points in its very early history which might be used to represent its actual birth, and a potential astrological "imprint" upon the character of the nation as a whole - as if it were a living breathing entity. Could a nation carry the qualities of the exact time of its birth within it, for all time?.......... I don't know.

Noticing ever-sharpening dichotomies within the USA as regards its politics has set me thinking along these lines. I guess similar divisions exist in most democratic countries, but it seems to me that the splits are sharper, more clearly defined and energetically retained here in the US. Even the two sides of the main political division manage to separate themselves by a secondary chasm, rather in the way an amoeba divides, then divides again. The Democrats, one side of the main division, are appearing sharply divided now within themselves, along elitist versus blue-collar lines (shorthand descriptions for ease). The Republicans are split between what is called the neo-con faction and those who follow a rather more liberal brand of conservatism. It seems to me that a particularly strong polarising effect is somehow inbuilt into the nation's character.

I decided that if any of the several natal charts suggested to represent the USA is going to be in any way valid, it must show a sharp opposition somewhere - to represent an inclination to polarise, then polarise again.

At Astrodatabank there's an excellent page HERE showing several different US charts and an explanation of each. There are five (with different rising signs) for the date of Declaration of Independence from Great Britain - 4 July 1776, and one for 2 July 1776, the date when Congress adopted the resolution to declare independence. There's one for the date on which the Constitution, supreme law of the land, was signed (17 December 1787). There's a chart for the date when war was declared on Great Britain, the catalyst for future independence (6 July 1775), and others relating to dates when Articles of Federation were ratified.

The chart which resonates with my own view is known as the Armistead chart, drawn up for 2 July 1776 at 12.04 PM, Philadelphia PA.

Extract from the Astrodatabank link (above)
"Source Notes: Julian Armistead quotes Allan Nevins and Henry Steel Commager, "A Pocket History of the United States." It reads, "Richard Henry Lee moved a resolution of independence ... which Congress adopted on July 2nd and proclaimed on July 4, 1776." .......................(John)Adams wrote that on 7/02/1776, Congress convened its final discussion and reading of the Declaration. At about 11:00 AM the debate closed and a vote was taken. Twelve colonies voted affirmative, while John Dickinson of New York was absent. Congress ordered the document authenticated and printed but it was another month before it was actually signed by the delegates. On August 2, the actual signing took place by some of the delegates. The last delegate, Thomas McKean of Delaware, did not sign until January 1777."

So... the decision on independence was actually made and carried on 2 July 1776, and a chart for that date shows a clear opposition between Moon/Pluto at 25/27 Capricorn and Mercury at 25 Cancer. The Moon represents the public in charts such as this, and I suppose that Mercury must represent thought processes, and communicated ideas. Pluto could be seen to be a dispruptive influence in an opposition which otherwise might find easier balance most of the time. Perhaps here is shown an innate propensity, within the USA's national character, for producing dichotomies.

I don't think the 2 July 1776 chart is the one most commonly used by astrologers. Although I haven't completely convinced myself about the underlying principle, it's an interesting study and something upon which I'm going to keep an eye, to note whether past and future events in any way tie in with planetary placements on the 2 July 1776.


Wisewebwoman said...

Have you created a chart for Dubya, T? You may have, I might have missed it.
I find in the US however, there is a remarkable disconnect between reality and perception of that reality. A form of psychopathy. No guilt or remorse after violence and the creation of catastrophic upheaval and abuse of millions of children (see Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).
Just a few thoughts as I read the chart.

Twilight said...


No, I never have tried to deal with GWB's natal chart. I'm just not drawn to it, maybe I'm thinking it's water under the bridge.

There's a good article (link below) from 2004 by Steffan Vanel on GWB - he discusses karma also, a subject which I'm not very sure about.

He does say this:
"Examination of Bush’s Astrological birthchart reveals that he and our nation are both confronting similar challenges of identifying with our self image at the expense of our true natures and immersing ourselves in Neptunian illusion and deception at the expense of our compassion."....which ties in with what you point out.

(That astrologer uses the 4 July 1776 chart for the USA with Sagittarius rising, which is different from the one I've chosen, but of course the Sun is in Cancer in both cases).


I do think that a good proportion of people in the USA do feel guilt about what has and is being done in their names by their governments' admminstrations. I think in the present situation, re Iraq, they showed this when they voted in a Democratic House of Representatives in November 2006.
The snag has been that the Democrats in whom they put their trust have turned out to have feet of clay. It's all very odd, and hard to rationalise.

Twilight said...


Twilight said...

can't get the link to copy complete here!


The Next President of The United States said...

Actually, the neo-cons are a more "liberal" wing of the modern conservative party. Although they have designs for a world that's basically ruled by the U.S., their social policies are pretty liberal compared to far right Evangelicals in the GOP. The REALLY CONSERVATIVE wing of the GOP is the Evangelics who are also stringent state's rights advocates and economic libertarians. At least, that's my interpretation of the Republicans. McCain, who was tutored by traditional conservative Barry Goldwater, falls somewhere in the middle

Twilight said...

Hi there TNPOTUS!

Thanks for the information. I've obviously picked up an incomplete idea of what "neo-con" represents.

You'd think that Evangelics would be a more compassionate strand of the conservative group, bearing in mind the teachings of their ultimate leader, Jesus Christ - but there ya go - you never can tell!
John McCain comes over to me as a fairly compassionate person, but the trouble would be who he'd bring in with him, and into the Supreme Court if the worst were to happen and the Democrats grab defeat from the jaws of victory (as is looking ever more likely).