USA: May 21, 1779 to Feb 2, 1781

January 9, 2007

Dear John,

Thank you for the masterful review of the historical records and for

deepening our understanding further of this special event. It sends a

shiver up my spine to realise we may have long last solved this great

riddle. I dare say it would not have been possible without modern

communications technology and this list which brought together this

diverse knowledge of many individuals across many time zones on the

face of this earth. Just think, a modern distillation of the ancient

indian system of astrology has been brought to bear on identifying

the true mundane chart for the USA based on obscure historical

records. Again, I say thanks to you and all the esteemed list

members, not least . What a splendid thing this

chart, astrology system and discussion list are.

Best wishes,

C

SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

>

> On Friday, May 21, 1779 in Philadelphia, in the Continental

Congress' chambers at the Pennsylvania State House, at the opening of

the day's session at 10:00 am, the Maryland delegation to Congress

laid on the table for debate what amounted to a challenge in the form

of a declaration of the State of Maryland to its fellow American

States as to the terms and conditions of Maryland's long sought-after

enacting consent to joining the American Union. By this date the

other 12 American States had agreed to the terms and Conditions of

the Articles of Confederation. Only Maryland's consent was still

withheld, and remained in doubt, in Maryland's estimation, so in

order to insist that the 13 States first unanimously agree to perfect

the American Union and launch the national government by settling the

controversy of America's western lands in favor of the nation, and

not just any particular, interested States. The other 12 States

eventually came around to the terms proposed by

> Maryland, and as a result Maryland's consent was given, at long

last, on Friday, February 2, 1781. American Union, perfected, was

born on this day.

>

> Now, Dear List members, if you will, please cast the horoscopes:

for Friday, May 21, 1779 @ 10:00 hrs [LMT, Philadelphia] and compare

it to the SAMVA USA chart for Friday, February 2, 1781 @ 5:05 hrs

[LMT, Annapolis]

>

> Please observe that the Ascendant in both charts is in the same

sign and degree: Cancer, 21st degree. That the 1779 event's Luna, in

1H Cancer, is exactly opposed to the 1781 event's Sol, in 7H

Capricorn. That the 1779 event's Sol, in 10H Taurus, is conjunct the

1781 event's Luna, 10H Taurus. That the 1779 event's Saturn, 4H

Scorpio, is conjunct the 1781 event's Jupiter, 4H Scorpio. Now then,

furthermore, please appreciate that in Masonic pre-natal [electional]

astrology, this multiple concurrences of zodiacal positions is not

accidental but electional; that the necessary relationships of the

Ascendants, Lunas, Sols and Saturns are those as conception [1779] is

necessarily to birth [1781]. And, last but surely not least, that

the best organized of the American Masons in that era were Jesuit-

trained Catholics of Maryland. And so, once again, behind the

scenes, one comes across telling evidences that the politicians were

consulting the astrologers.

>

> WESTERN LANDS EXPLAINED

>

> The issue was the then western lands beyond the original borders

of the 13 colonies. As the nation grew and pushed west, would these

lands be the political preserve of only certain contiguous States, or

the common domain of the nation. Maryland insisted as a condition of

its consent that the western lands must be held in common for the

Union. If the western territory was to be retained and utilized, but

two courses were open: to allow all the states to engage in a general

scramble for it, in which each state should secure as much of its

claims as it could enforce; or to accept it as national property,

defend it by national force, and govern it by national authority. To

allow the national bond to break altogether, through the default of

the articles of confederation, would have had the former result; and

in this instance, as in others, the prejudices of the people at last

gave way to their common sense, and they chose the latter. But the

process by which they were

> brought to this conclusion made up one of the vital issues of

American politics from 1778 until 1781.

>

> THE OFFICIAL RECORD

>

> Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789

> The State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

>

> FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1779

>

> 10:00 am: The delegates of Maryland informed Congress that they

have received instructions respecting the articles of confederation,

which they are directed to lay before Congress, and to have entered

on their journals; the instructions being read are as follows:

>

> Instructions of the general assembly of Maryland, to George

Plater, William Paca, William Carmichael, John Henry, James Forbes

and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, esqrs;

>

> Gentlemen, Having conferred upon you a trust of the highest

nature, it is evident we place great confidence in your integrity,

abilities and zeal to promote the general welfare of the United

States, and the particular interest of this state, where the latter

is not incompatible with the former; but to add greater weight to

your proceedings in Congress, and to take away all suspicion that the

opinions you there deliver, and the votes you give, may be the mere

opinions of individuals, and not resulting from your knowledge of the

sense and deliberate judgment of the state you represent, we think it

our duty to instruct you as followeth on the subject of the

confederation, a subject in which, unfortunately, a supposed

difference of interest has produced an almost equal division of

sentiments among the several states composing the union: We say a

supposed difference of interests; for, if local attachments and

prejudices, and the avarice and ambition of individuals, would give

> way to the dictates of a sound policy, founded on the principles

of justice, (and no other policy but what is founded on those

immutable principles deserves to be called sound,) we flatter

ourselves this apparent diversity of interests would soon vanish; and

all the states would confederate on terms mutually advantageous to

all; for they would then perceive that no other confederation than

one so formed can be lasting.

>

> Although the pressure of immediate calamities, the dread of their

continuance from the appearance of disunion, and some other peculiar

circumstances, may have induced some states to accede to the present

confederation, contrary to their own interests and judgments, it

requires no great share of foresight to predict, that when those

causes cease to operate, the states which have thus acceded to the

confederation will consider it as no longer binding, and will eagerly

embrace the first occasion of asserting their just rights and

securing their independence. Is it possible that those states, who

are ambitiously grasping at territories, to which in our judgment

they have not the least shadow of exclusive right, will use with

greater moderation the increase of wealth and power derived from

those territories, when acquired, than what they have displayed in

their endeavors to acquire them? we think not; we are convinced the

same spirit which hath prompted them to insist on a

> claim so extravagant, so repugnant to every principle of justice,

so incompatible with the general welfare of all the states, will urge

them on to add oppression to injustice. If they should not be incited

by a superiority of wealth and strength to oppress by open force

their less wealthy and less powerful neighbors, yet the depopulation,

and consequently the impoverishment of those states, will necessarily

follow, which by an unfair construction of the confederation may be

stripped of a common interest in, and the common benefits derivable

from, the western country.1 Suppose, for instance, Virginia

indisputably possessed of the extensive and fertile country to which

she has set up a claim, what would be the probable consequences to

Maryland of such an undisturbed and undisputed possession? They

cannot escape the least discerning.

>

> Virginia, by selling on the most moderate terms a small

proportion of the lands in question, would draw into her treasury

vast sums of money, and in proportion to the sums arising from such

sales, would be enabled to lessen her taxes: lands comparatively

cheap and taxes comparatively low, with the lands and taxes of an

adjacent state, would quickly drain the state thus disadvantageously

circumstanced of its most useful inhabitants, its wealth; and its

consequence in the scale of the confederated states would sink of

course. A claim so injurious to more than one half, if not to the

whole of the United States, ought to be supported by the clearest

evidence of the right. Yet what evidences of that right have been

produced? What arguments alleged in support either of the evidence or

the right; none that we have heard of deserving a serious refutation.

>

> It has been said that some of the delegates of a neighboring

state have declared their opinion of the impracticability of

governing the extensive dominion claimed by that state: hence also

the necessity was admitted of dividing its territory and erecting a

new state, under the auspices and direction of the elder, from whom

no doubt it would receive its form of government, to whom it would be

bound by some alliance or confederacy, and by whose councils it would

be influenced: such a measure, if ever attempted, would certainly be

opposed by the other states, as inconsistent with the letter and

spirit of the proposed confederation. Should it take place, by

establishing a sub-confederacy, imperium in imperio, the state

possessed of this extensive dominion must then either submit to all

the inconveniences of an overgrown and unwieldy government, or suffer

the authority of Congress to interpose at a future time, and to lop

off a part of its territory to be erected into a new

> and free state, and admitted into the confederation on such

conditions as shall be settled by nine states. If it is necessary for

the happiness and tranquility of a state thus overgrown, that

Congress should hereafter interfere and divide its territory; why is

the claim to that territory now made and so pertinaciously insisted

on? We can suggest to ourselves but two motives; either the

declaration of relinquishing at some future period a portion of the

country now contended for, was made to lull suspicion asleep, and to

cover the designs of a secret ambition, or if the thought was

seriously entertained, the lands are now claimed to reap an immediate

profit from the

sale.

>

> We are convinced policy and justice require that a country

unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British

crown, and ceded to it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the

common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states, should

be considered as a common property, subject to be parcelled out by

Congress into free, convenient and independent governments, in such

manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assembly shall

hereafter direct. Thus convinced, we should betray the trust reposed

in us by our constituents, were we to authorize you to ratify on

their behalf the confederation, unless it be farther explained: we

have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject; we have

weighed probable inconveniences and hardships against the sacrifice

of just and essential rights; and do instruct you not to agree to the

confederation, unless an article or articles be added thereto in

conformity with our declaration: should we succeed in

> obtaining such article or articles, then you are hereby fully

empowered to accede to the confederation.

>

> That these our sentiments respecting the confederation may be

more publicly known and more explicitly and concisely declared, we

have drawn up the annexed declaration, which we instruct you to lay

before Congress, to have it printed, and to deliver to each of the

delegates of the other states in Congress assembled, copies thereof,

signed by yourselves or by such of you as may be present at the time

of the delivery; to the intent and purpose that the copies aforesaid

may be communicated to our brethren of the United States, and the

contents of the said declaration taken into their serious and candid

consideration.

>

> Also we desire and instruct you to move at a proper time, that

these instructions be read to Congress by their secretary, and

entered on the journals of Congress.

>

> We have spoken with freedom, as becomes freemen, and we sincerely

wish that these our representations may make such an impression on

that assembly as to induce them to make such addition to the articles

of confederation as may bring about a permanent union.

>

> A true copy from the proceedings of December 15, 1778.

>

> Test, J. Duckett, C. H. D.

>

> ******************************

>

January 9, 2007

Dear Cosmo, It's really gratifying for me to have found, now these past few years, an internet astrology group with such a diverse membership profile, and which takes the devil-in-the-details of history as seriously as so many in this List do. It makes my investigative work a real pleasure. When I realized, only today, that the 10:00 am event Ascendant for the May 21, 1779 is 20Cancer58 [ie, on my SolarFire/Lahiri software; and thanks to the Journals of the Continental Congress], AND you have continued to so eloquently explain the circumstances in rectification for choosing the event Ascendant 20Cancer49/20Cancer59 for the Feb 2, 1781, I KNEW WE HADE CRACKED THE COSMIC CODE for the historic occasion of the birth of perfected American Union, that being the USA. We now know why the Marylanders [Maryland, my home country] waited to that particular Friday in February

1781, undoubtedly deliberately delaying the enactment-of-consent so many weeks in order to wait for that event-Moon [8th degree Taurus] of Feb 2, in resonance with the event-Sun [10th degree Taurus] of May 21, 1779; same Ascendant point for both events. [by the way, one of the two Maryland signers of the Articles of Confederation, Mr Daniel Carroll, was both a Roman Catholic and a Mason.] I NO LONGER HAVE ANY DOUBTS THAT YOUR RECTIFIED CHOICE OF MOST LIKELY TIME MOMENT IS SO CLOSE TO THE TRUE MOMENT THAT WE MAY TAKE CONFIDENCE IN HAVING NARROWED THE ZODIACAL SCOPE OF FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS TO A PROBABLE ASCENDANT-POINT RANGE MEASURED IN ARC-MINUTES, NO LONGER LIKELY MORE THAN ONE DEGREE. [but do investigate Ron Day's recommended 20th degree]. I sincerely hope future work in this regard can be conducted with the greatest confidence. And my especial thanks to the Professor and Jorge for having the patience to allow my occasional contributions, given my sometimes undisciplined approach to matters of mutual concern. I hereby confess that I'm still a very poor student of SA technique. My first loves remain history and philosophy, but astrology is not far behind. And, THANKS to the group, JOHN cosmologer <cosmologer wrote: Dear

John,Thank you for the masterful review of the historical records and for deepening our understanding further of this special event. It sends a shiver up my spine to realise we may have long last solved this great riddle. I dare say it would not have been possible without modern communications technology and this list which brought together this diverse knowledge of many individuals across many time zones on the face of this earth. Just think, a modern distillation of the ancient indian system of astrology has been brought to bear on identifying the true mundane chart for the USA based on obscure historical records. Again, I say thanks to you and all the esteemed list members, not least . What a splendid thing this chart, astrology system and discussion list are.Best wishes,CSAMVA , JohnTWB

<blazingstar1776 wrote:>> > > On Friday, May 21, 1779 in Philadelphia, in the Continental Congress' chambers at the Pennsylvania State House, at the opening of the day's session at 10:00 am, the Maryland delegation to Congress laid on the table for debate what amounted to a challenge in the form of a declaration of the State of Maryland to its fellow American States as to the terms and conditions of Maryland's long sought-after enacting consent to joining the American Union. By this date the other 12 American States had agreed to the terms and Conditions of the Articles of Confederation. Only Maryland's consent was still withheld, and remained in doubt, in Maryland's estimation, so in order to insist that the 13 States first unanimously agree to perfect the American Union and launch the national government by settling the controversy of America's western lands in favor of the

nation, and not just any particular, interested States. The other 12 States eventually came around to the terms proposed by> Maryland, and as a result Maryland's consent was given, at long last, on Friday, February 2, 1781. American Union, perfected, was born on this day. > > Now, Dear List members, if you will, please cast the horoscopes: for Friday, May 21, 1779 @ 10:00 hrs [LMT, Philadelphia] and compare it to the SAMVA USA chart for Friday, February 2, 1781 @ 5:05 hrs [LMT, Annapolis]> > Please observe that the Ascendant in both charts is in the same sign and degree: Cancer, 21st degree. That the 1779 event's Luna, in 1H Cancer, is exactly opposed to the 1781 event's Sol, in 7H Capricorn. That the 1779 event's Sol, in 10H Taurus, is conjunct the 1781 event's Luna, 10H Taurus. That the 1779 event's Saturn, 4H Scorpio, is conjunct the 1781 event's Jupiter, 4H Scorpio. Now then,

furthermore, please appreciate that in Masonic pre-natal [electional] astrology, this multiple concurrences of zodiacal positions is not accidental but electional; that the necessary relationships of the Ascendants, Lunas, Sols and Saturns are those as conception [1779] is necessarily to birth [1781]. And, last but surely not least, that the best organized of the American Masons in that era were Jesuit-trained Catholics of Maryland. And so, once again, behind the scenes, one comes across telling evidences that the politicians were consulting the astrologers.> > WESTERN LANDS EXPLAINED> > The issue was the then western lands beyond the original borders of the 13 colonies. As the nation grew and pushed west, would these lands be the political preserve of only certain contiguous States, or the common domain of the nation. Maryland insisted as a condition of its consent that the western lands must

be held in common for the Union. If the western territory was to be retained and utilized, but two courses were open: to allow all the states to engage in a general scramble for it, in which each state should secure as much of its claims as it could enforce; or to accept it as national property, defend it by national force, and govern it by national authority. To allow the national bond to break altogether, through the default of the articles of confederation, would have had the former result; and in this instance, as in others, the prejudices of the people at last gave way to their common sense, and they chose the latter. But the process by which they were> brought to this conclusion made up one of the vital issues of American politics from 1778 until 1781.> > THE OFFICIAL RECORD > > Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789> The State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania>

> FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1779> > 10:00 am: The delegates of Maryland informed Congress that they have received instructions respecting the articles of confederation, which they are directed to lay before Congress, and to have entered on their journals; the instructions being read are as follows:> > Instructions of the general assembly of Maryland, to George Plater, William Paca, William Carmichael, John Henry, James Forbes and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, esqrs;> > Gentlemen, Having conferred upon you a trust of the highest nature, it is evident we place great confidence in your integrity, abilities and zeal to promote the general welfare of the United States, and the particular interest of this state, where the latter is not incompatible with the former; but to add greater weight to your proceedings in Congress, and to take away all suspicion that the opinions you there deliver, and the

votes you give, may be the mere opinions of individuals, and not resulting from your knowledge of the sense and deliberate judgment of the state you represent, we think it our duty to instruct you as followeth on the subject of the confederation, a subject in which, unfortunately, a supposed difference of interest has produced an almost equal division of sentiments among the several states composing the union: We say a supposed difference of interests; for, if local attachments and prejudices, and the avarice and ambition of individuals, would give> way to the dictates of a sound policy, founded on the principles of justice, (and no other policy but what is founded on those immutable principles deserves to be called sound,) we flatter ourselves this apparent diversity of interests would soon vanish; and all the states would confederate on terms mutually advantageous to all; for they would then perceive that no

other confederation than one so formed can be lasting. > > Although the pressure of immediate calamities, the dread of their continuance from the appearance of disunion, and some other peculiar circumstances, may have induced some states to accede to the present confederation, contrary to their own interests and judgments, it requires no great share of foresight to predict, that when those causes cease to operate, the states which have thus acceded to the confederation will consider it as no longer binding, and will eagerly embrace the first occasion of asserting their just rights and securing their independence. Is it possible that those states, who are ambitiously grasping at territories, to which in our judgment they have not the least shadow of exclusive right, will use with greater moderation the increase of wealth and power derived from those territories, when acquired, than what they have displayed in

their endeavors to acquire them? we think not; we are convinced the same spirit which hath prompted them to insist on a> claim so extravagant, so repugnant to every principle of justice, so incompatible with the general welfare of all the states, will urge them on to add oppression to injustice. If they should not be incited by a superiority of wealth and strength to oppress by open force their less wealthy and less powerful neighbors, yet the depopulation, and consequently the impoverishment of those states, will necessarily follow, which by an unfair construction of the confederation may be stripped of a common interest in, and the common benefits derivable from, the western country.1 Suppose, for instance, Virginia indisputably possessed of the extensive and fertile country to which she has set up a claim, what would be the probable consequences to Maryland of such an undisturbed and undisputed possession? They

cannot escape the least discerning. > > Virginia, by selling on the most moderate terms a small proportion of the lands in question, would draw into her treasury vast sums of money, and in proportion to the sums arising from such sales, would be enabled to lessen her taxes: lands comparatively cheap and taxes comparatively low, with the lands and taxes of an adjacent state, would quickly drain the state thus disadvantageously circumstanced of its most useful inhabitants, its wealth; and its consequence in the scale of the confederated states would sink of course. A claim so injurious to more than one half, if not to the whole of the United States, ought to be supported by the clearest evidence of the right. Yet what evidences of that right have been produced? What arguments alleged in support either of the evidence or the right; none that we have heard of deserving a serious refutation.> > It

has been said that some of the delegates of a neighboring state have declared their opinion of the impracticability of governing the extensive dominion claimed by that state: hence also the necessity was admitted of dividing its territory and erecting a new state, under the auspices and direction of the elder, from whom no doubt it would receive its form of government, to whom it would be bound by some alliance or confederacy, and by whose councils it would be influenced: such a measure, if ever attempted, would certainly be opposed by the other states, as inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the proposed confederation. Should it take place, by establishing a sub-confederacy, imperium in imperio, the state possessed of this extensive dominion must then either submit to all the inconveniences of an overgrown and unwieldy government, or suffer the authority of Congress to interpose at a future time, and to lop off

a part of its territory to be erected into a new> and free state, and admitted into the confederation on such conditions as shall be settled by nine states. If it is necessary for the happiness and tranquility of a state thus overgrown, that Congress should hereafter interfere and divide its territory; why is the claim to that territory now made and so pertinaciously insisted on? We can suggest to ourselves but two motives; either the declaration of relinquishing at some future period a portion of the country now contended for, was made to lull suspicion asleep, and to cover the designs of a secret ambition, or if the thought was seriously entertained, the lands are now claimed to reap an immediate profit from the sale. > > We are convinced policy and justice require that a country unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British crown, and ceded to it by the treaty of Paris, if

wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states, should be considered as a common property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress into free, convenient and independent governments, in such manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assembly shall hereafter direct. Thus convinced, we should betray the trust reposed in us by our constituents, were we to authorize you to ratify on their behalf the confederation, unless it be farther explained: we have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject; we have weighed probable inconveniences and hardships against the sacrifice of just and essential rights; and do instruct you not to agree to the confederation, unless an article or articles be added thereto in conformity with our declaration: should we succeed in> obtaining such article or articles, then you are hereby fully empowered to accede to the confederation.> >

That these our sentiments respecting the confederation may be more publicly known and more explicitly and concisely declared, we have drawn up the annexed declaration, which we instruct you to lay before Congress, to have it printed, and to deliver to each of the delegates of the other states in Congress assembled, copies thereof, signed by yourselves or by such of you as may be present at the time of the delivery; to the intent and purpose that the copies aforesaid may be communicated to our brethren of the United States, and the contents of the said declaration taken into their serious and candid consideration.> > Also we desire and instruct you to move at a proper time, that these instructions be read to Congress by their secretary, and entered on the journals of Congress.> > We have spoken with freedom, as becomes freemen, and we sincerely wish that these our representations may make such an

impression on that assembly as to induce them to make such addition to the articles of confederation as may bring about a permanent union.> > A true copy from the proceedings of December 15, 1778.> > Test, J. Duckett, C. H. D.> > ******************************> > > > > > > Do You ?Tired of spam? Mail has the

best spam protection around

January 9, 2007

My dear John,

My sincere congratulations for your success!

I am the one that feels grateful for your help all over this rectification wotk, and I think I am also speaking in the name of all the other list members. Thanks a lot.

Best wishes,

Jorge

On 1/9/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

Dear Cosmo,

It's really gratifying for me to have found, now these past few years, an internet astrology group with such a diverse membership profile, and which takes the devil-in-the-details of history as seriously as so many in this List do. It makes my investigative work a real pleasure.

When I realized, only today, that the 10:00 am event Ascendant for the May 21, 1779 is 20Cancer58 [ie, on my SolarFire/Lahiri software; and thanks to the Journals of the Continental Congress], AND you have continued to so eloquently explain the circumstances in rectification for choosing the event Ascendant 20Cancer49/20Cancer59 for the Feb 2, 1781, I KNEW WE HADE CRACKED THE COSMIC CODE for the historic occasion of the birth of perfected American Union, that being the USA. We now know why the Marylanders [Maryland, my home country] waited to that particular Friday in February 1781, undoubtedly deliberately delaying the enactment-of-consent so many weeks in order to wait for that event-Moon [8th degree Taurus] of Feb 2, in resonance with the event-Sun [10th degree Taurus] of May 21, 1779; same Ascendant point for both events. [by the way, one of the two Maryland signers of the Articles of Confederation, Mr Daniel Carroll, was both a Roman Catholic and a Mason.]

I NO LONGER HAVE ANY DOUBTS THAT YOUR RECTIFIED CHOICE OF MOST LIKELY TIME MOMENT IS SO CLOSE TO THE TRUE MOMENT THAT WE MAY TAKE CONFIDENCE IN HAVING NARROWED THE ZODIACAL SCOPE OF FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS TO A PROBABLE ASCENDANT-POINT RANGE MEASURED IN ARC-MINUTES, NO LONGER LIKELY MORE THAN ONE DEGREE. [but do investigate Ron Day's recommended 20th degree].

I sincerely hope future work in this regard can be conducted with the greatest confidence.

And my especial thanks to the Professor and Jorge for having the patience to allow my occasional contributions, given my sometimes undisciplined approach to matters of mutual concern. I hereby confess that I'm still a very poor student of SA technique. My first loves remain history and philosophy, but astrology is not far behind.

And, THANKS to the group,

JOHN cosmologer <cosmologer

wrote:

Dear John,Thank you for the masterful review of the historical records and for deepening our understanding further of this special event. It sends a shiver up my spine to realise we may have long last solved this great riddle. I dare say it would not have been possible without modern communications technology and this list which brought together this diverse knowledge of many individuals across many time zones on the face of this earth. Just think, a modern distillation of the ancient indian system of astrology has been brought to bear on identifying the true mundane chart for the USA based on obscure historical records. Again, I say thanks to you and all the esteemed list members, not least . What a splendid thing this chart, astrology system and discussion list are.Best wishes,CSAMVA

, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:>> > > On Friday, May 21, 1779 in Philadelphia, in the Continental Congress' chambers at the Pennsylvania State House, at the opening of the day's session at 10:00 am, the Maryland delegation to Congress laid on the table for debate what amounted to a challenge in the form of a declaration of the State of Maryland to its fellow American

States as to the terms and conditions of Maryland's long sought-after enacting consent to joining the American Union. By this date the other 12 American States had agreed to the terms and Conditions of the Articles of Confederation. Only Maryland's consent was still withheld, and remained in doubt, in Maryland's estimation, so in order to insist that the 13 States first unanimously agree to perfect the American Union and launch the national government by settling the controversy of America's western lands in favor of the nation, and not just any particular, interested States. The other 12 States eventually came around to the terms proposed by> Maryland, and as a result Maryland's consent was given, at long last, on Friday, February 2, 1781. American Union, perfected, was born on this day. > > Now, Dear List members, if you will, please cast the horoscopes: for Friday, May 21, 1779 @ 10:00 hrs [LMT, Philadelphia] and compare it to the SAMVA USA chart for Friday, February 2, 1781 @ 5:05 hrs [LMT, Annapolis]> > Please observe that the Ascendant in both charts is in the same sign and degree: Cancer, 21st degree. That the 1779 event's Luna, in 1H Cancer, is exactly opposed to the 1781 event's Sol, in 7H Capricorn. That the 1779 event's Sol, in 10H Taurus, is conjunct the 1781 event's Luna, 10H Taurus. That the 1779 event's Saturn, 4H Scorpio, is conjunct the 1781 event's Jupiter, 4H Scorpio. Now then, furthermore, please appreciate that in Masonic pre-natal [electional] astrology, this multiple concurrences of zodiacal positions is not accidental but electional; that the necessary relationships of the Ascendants, Lunas, Sols and Saturns are those as conception [1779] is necessarily to birth [1781]. And, last but surely not least, that the best organized of the American Masons in that era were Jesuit-

trained Catholics of Maryland. And so, once again, behind the scenes, one comes across telling evidences that the politicians were consulting the astrologers.> > WESTERN LANDS EXPLAINED>

> The issue was the then western lands beyond the original borders of the 13 colonies. As the nation grew and pushed west, would these lands be the political preserve of only certain contiguous States, or the common domain of the nation. Maryland insisted as a condition of its consent that the western lands must be held in common for the Union. If the western territory was to be retained and utilized, but two courses were open: to allow all the states to engage in a general

scramble for it, in which each state should secure as much of its claims as it could enforce; or to accept it as national property, defend it by national force, and govern it by national authority. To allow the national bond to break altogether, through the default of the articles of confederation, would have had the former result; and in this instance, as in others, the prejudices of the people at last gave way to their common sense, and they chose the latter. But the

process by which they were> brought to this conclusion made up one of the vital issues of American politics from 1778 until 1781.> > THE OFFICIAL RECORD > > Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789

> The State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania> > FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1779> > 10:00 am: The delegates of Maryland informed Congress that they have received instructions respecting the articles of confederation, which they are directed to lay before Congress, and to have entered on their journals; the instructions being read are as follows:> > Instructions of the general assembly of Maryland, to George Plater, William Paca, William Carmichael, John Henry, James Forbes and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, esqrs;> > Gentlemen, Having conferred upon you a trust of the highest nature, it is evident we place great confidence in your integrity, abilities and zeal to promote the general welfare of the United States, and the particular interest of this state, where the latter is not incompatible with the former; but to add greater weight to your proceedings in Congress, and to take away all suspicion that the opinions you there deliver, and the votes you give, may be the mere opinions of individuals, and not resulting from your knowledge of the sense and deliberate judgment of the state you represent, we think it our duty to instruct you as followeth on the subject of the confederation, a subject in which, unfortunately, a supposed difference of interest has produced an almost equal division of sentiments among the several states composing the union: We say a supposed difference of interests; for, if local attachments and prejudices, and the avarice and ambition of individuals, would give

> way to the dictates of a sound policy, founded on the principles of justice, (and no other policy but what is founded on those immutable principles deserves to be called sound,) we flatter ourselves this apparent diversity of interests would soon vanish; and all the states would confederate on terms mutually advantageous to all; for they would then perceive that no other confederation than one so formed can be lasting. > > Although the pressure of immediate calamities, the dread of their continuance from the appearance of disunion, and some other peculiar circumstances, may have induced some states to accede to the present confederation, contrary to their own interests and judgments, it requires no great share of foresight to predict, that when those causes cease to operate, the states which have thus acceded to the confederation will consider it as no longer binding, and will eagerly embrace the first occasion of asserting their just rights and securing their independence. Is it possible that those states, who are ambitiously grasping at territories, to which in our judgment they have not the least shadow of exclusive right, will use with greater moderation the increase of wealth and power derived from those territories, when acquired, than what they have displayed in their endeavors to acquire them? we think not; we are convinced the same spirit which hath prompted them to insist on a> claim so extravagant, so repugnant to every principle of justice, so incompatible with the general welfare of all the states, will urge them on to add oppression to injustice. If they should not be incited by a superiority of wealth and strength to oppress by open force their less wealthy and less powerful neighbors, yet the depopulation,

and consequently the impoverishment of those states, will necessarily follow, which by an unfair construction of the confederation may be stripped of a common interest in, and the common benefits derivable from, the western country.1 Suppose, for instance, Virginia indisputably possessed of the extensive and fertile country to which she has set up a claim, what would be the probable consequences to Maryland of such an undisturbed and undisputed possession? They cannot escape the least discerning. > > Virginia, by selling on the most moderate terms a small proportion of the lands in question, would draw into her treasury vast sums of money, and in proportion to the sums arising from such sales, would be enabled to lessen her taxes: lands comparatively cheap and taxes comparatively low, with the lands and taxes of an adjacent state, would quickly drain the state thus disadvantageously circumstanced of its most useful inhabitants, its wealth; and its consequence in the scale of the confederated states would sink of course. A claim so injurious to more than one half, if not to the whole of the United States, ought to be supported by the clearest evidence of the right. Yet what evidences of that right have been produced? What arguments alleged in support either of the evidence or the right; none that we have heard of deserving a serious refutation.> > It has been said that some of the delegates of a neighboring state have declared their opinion of the impracticability of governing the extensive dominion claimed by that state: hence also the necessity was admitted of dividing its territory and erecting a new state, under the auspices and direction of the elder, from whom no doubt it would receive its form of government, to whom it would be bound by some alliance or confederacy, and by whose councils it would be influenced: such a measure, if ever attempted, would certainly be opposed by the other states, as inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the proposed confederation. Should it take place, by establishing a sub-confederacy, imperium in imperio, the state possessed of this extensive dominion must then either submit to all the inconveniences of an overgrown and unwieldy government, or suffer the authority of Congress to interpose at a future time, and to lop off a part of its territory to be erected into a new> and free state, and admitted into the confederation on such conditions as shall be settled by nine states. If it is necessary for the happiness and tranquility of a state thus overgrown, that Congress should hereafter interfere and divide its territory; why is the claim to that territory now made and so pertinaciously insisted on? We can suggest to ourselves but two motives; either the declaration of relinquishing at some future period a portion of the country now contended for, was made to lull suspicion asleep, and to cover the designs of a secret ambition, or if the thought was seriously entertained, the lands are now claimed to reap an immediate profit from the sale. > > We are convinced policy and justice require that a country unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British crown, and ceded to it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states, should be considered as a common property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress into free, convenient and independent governments, in such manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assembly shall hereafter direct. Thus convinced, we should betray the trust reposed in us by our constituents, were we to authorize you to ratify on their behalf the confederation, unless it be farther explained: we have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject; we have weighed probable inconveniences and hardships against the sacrifice of just and essential rights; and do instruct you not to agree to the confederation, unless an article or articles be added thereto in conformity with our declaration: should we succeed in> obtaining such article or articles, then you are hereby fully empowered to accede to the confederation.> > That these our sentiments respecting the confederation may be more publicly known and more explicitly and concisely declared, we have drawn up the annexed declaration, which we instruct you to lay before Congress, to have it printed, and to deliver to each of the delegates of the other states in Congress assembled, copies thereof, signed by yourselves or by such of you as may be present at the time of the delivery; to the intent and purpose that the copies aforesaid may be communicated to our brethren of the United States, and the contents of the said declaration taken into their serious and candid consideration.> > Also we desire and instruct you to move at a proper time, that these instructions be read to Congress by their secretary, and entered on the journals of Congress.> > We have spoken with freedom, as becomes freemen, and we sincerely wish that these our representations may make such an impression on that assembly as to induce them to make such addition to the articles of confederation as may bring about a permanent union.> > A true copy from the proceedings of December 15, 1778.

> > Test, J. Duckett, C. H. D.> > ******************************> > > > > > >

January 9, 2007

Dear C,

Congratulations, your quest may be over. Some key events from the past do

match easily as you have brought to light. I never fully commit until the

final nail is hammered in - the proof now lies in the accuracy of

predictions as you have stated.

Macro view into May 2007

The current period Ve/Ju.

In the natal chart Venus is badly placed in H6, Sg and under the wide aspect

of Rahu. Considering the stationary transit Ke affliction from H2 into May,

the general/political stability and relations with other countries will be

poor. As natal Ju sits in H5 and transit Ju, from today, is close to the 21

degree mark of that house into October, the situation is even more dire -

financial markets would be affected negatively, and the affliction to the

ascendant exasperates conflicts especially as natal Mo sits in H11 and natal

LO10, Ma is in H5. Retrograde Saturn, in the latter part of Feb is close to

H1 MEP; it begins to move away around mid May. This Saturn will bring

obstructions to the country, communication, partners and finance in general.

Natal Saturn is also in H5 and will be afflicted from the end of Feb by

Jupiter; transit Ju afflicts tr Saturn until the beginning of June - the

positive aspects of H8 cannot manifest. Note also the affliction to the

natal houses of the axis in reverse, i.e. Ra afflicts H4 containing Ke, and

Ke afflicts H10 containing Ra. Rahu from H8 afflicts H12 (foreign lands) and

H4 (homeland stability and peace). The beginning of May has some negative

significance with Su and Me in H10 under both Ketu and Saturn, with Jupiter

exactly afflicting Saturn. LO10 Mars is weak by age, in an afflicted H8. We

cannot rule out military involvement as well with the transit of Mars

through H6 - H8 (comments on this latter point are welcomed by senior SA

persons)

Into May of this year, things should be very challenging per this chart. For

a comparison of how challenging, we can examine the situation around 9-11.

Post tensions were largely due to the afflictions by Jupiter and Saturn and

were heaviest for 4 months following Sep 2001 with close Ju-H12 MEP and

Sa-H11 MEP. This present situation involves not only Ju and Sa, but also the

axis for slightly longer.

Best regards,

Vyas Munidas

-

" cosmologer " <cosmologer

Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:52 PM

Re: USA: May 21, 1779 to Feb 2, 1781