USA: May 21, 1779 to Feb 2, 1781

[Guest guest]

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, 1774-1789The 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. ******************************