Articles of Confederation & the Continental Association

[Guest guest]

Dear Thor, A dear friend of mine, an accomplished astrologer, recently advised me that the 29th of January would be for me an auspicious day for a bold initiative as regards the SAMVA USA chart. My previous post, the substance of its message, was to just that purpose. The so-called recommendation at the close was without earnest purpose, and yet, in a light hearted way, it punctuated my statement with the need, as I saw it, to make light of a serious intellectual matter. I remain firm in my conviction that astrologers must recognize that the small facts of history, as reviewed in the Jefferson story in my previous post, do point to the larger truths of the historical record for this event at great variance with the myth of the birth of America's nation State in July 1776. Frankly speaking, mundane astrologers, by and large among the entire community,

appear tome to be too often shockingly deficient in practicing what they preach about the necessity of precision in the work of event analysis. . Some of the most accomplished people in the deployment of quantitative techniques of the cosmic guild, think nothing of embracing the slopiest of concepts as they pertain to the mundane factual realm of history and political science. It has been my abiding commitment to the art of precision in these mundane matters mentioned, that has often enough annoyed the hell out of some astrologers, particularly in other groups, because I love to point out the facts of a given situation. I forever eschew rivalrous motives.My abiding commitment in life is to the hallowed art of truth telling In SAMVA, I sincerely believe that I have found astrologers who respect the arts of precision in both realms, the mundane

and the astrological. My expertise in the mundane is something I like to express here as best I can because the reactions of the membership tell me that my interpretations are acknowledged for just what they are, when demonstrated to be authentic. So I am not surprised by the progress on the SAMVA USA rectifications, in just its first month of life. And so, all the more auspicious does the Union's upcoming 226th birthday become, this year on February 2, 2007, for hosting the Moon's transit thru the 21st degree of Cancer, the USA's natal Moon, on a Friday just as it was on that same weekday 226 years ago; this time around in the pre-dawn hours in Annapolis, Maryland. Thanks, Thor cosmologer <cosmologer wrote: Dear John,As you know, the suggestion in early January to name the chart for the USA based on the event on Feb. 2, 1781, as "the SAMVA chart for the USA", was in recognition of the work that took place on the SA lists from 1998, notably on SAMVA from January 2001 to January 2007, leading up to our discovery of this chart as well as , whose SA methodology has enabled us to identify the potentiality of this event.I want to use this opportunity to praise you, John, for all the outstanding work you have done on SAMVA to identify precisely both

the timing and nature of the many potential birth moments for the USA. Without your many contributions, the progress achieved to date would not have been possible. You are indeed a key contributor on SAMVA in the past few years as well as the co-discoverer of this chart. Thus the chart is also named in your honor. For this bird to fly, however, it needed two wings. In that regard, for balance, I should mention that without the following elements: - my promptings to you to keep on searching for other events,- my fascination with the 21° Cancer rising degree - the Systems Approach to vedic astrology- 's guidance, including his earlier comments on the 21° Cancer rising chart for Mar 1 1781 event- various comments by other list members - my own evaluation of this chart after you suggested the event to me (and to be fair, we should also keep in mind that at that time you could not be aware of

the events astrological significance)the potentiality of this event would likely not have come to light at this time (or possibly ever). "The SAMVA chart for the USA" name therefore reflects a unique history not shared by other charts for the USA, whatever their respective merit.Finally, I am concerned that calling more than one chart for the USA as a "SAMVA chart" will created undue confusion about what chart for the USA is being discussed. I therefore respectfully suggest we retain present namings of charts under study (e.g. Rectified chart for the USA, SAMVA USA chart, etc.).Best wishes,ThorSAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:>> Dear Jorge,> > ABSOLUTELY as you have described it. October 22, 1774, event of conception for July 2, 1776 event of birth. Unmistakable, at least to

me and, I think, Vyas, and, certainly, Rudolf Steiner and his school of babylonian sidereal astrology.> > Strictly speaking, the historic event of JULY 2, 1776, as per Jorge's rectifications, is the declaration of Independence of the Continental Association, on behalf of the colonies-turned-states by this act of Congress, and not, by and of "the United States of America".> > Brace yourselves, Group, if you have the patience to read on. I wish to relate something that is not widely known, if at all, because it has yet to appear in any book I know of.> > Consider the famous Jefferson broadside published first on July 5, 1776 under the following title quote A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA unquote. I shall now explain why this title was a colossal mis-nomer. Only corrected on August 2, 1776.> > Jefferson first wote, for the very

first time put on paper, the stile THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on the very early Sunday morning of June 16, 1776. This official stile of America's future Confederation was his baby to nuture. [btw, the Moon was exactly NEW just 8 hours earlier, on Saturday night, the 15th.] Jefferson discussed his 'baby' that same Sunday with John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, the author of the first draft of the Articles of Confederation, which first draft was dated the next day, June 17th. Dickinson picked up this future official stile from Jefferson. With Dickinson's agreement the stile of the Confederation was then determined at the first committee meeting to be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The confusion about its origins was understandable given those hectic days in Congress. > > Jefferson wrote his DECLARATION with the reasonable expectation that the ARTICLES would be agreed to before his DECLARATION was

published [i.e. formal Union before sovereign Independence]. As the numerous lawyers among the 44 delegates undoubtedly recognized, by Tuesday, July 2, 1776, it wasn't the Confederation declaring Independence, because the disagreements among that Confederation drafting committee of 13 were so serious that these disagreements delayed acceptance of the ARTICLES to well beyond July 1776. As the result of the delay in the adoption of the ARTICLES, it was the "United Colonies of America" which declared themselves, henceforth, "free and independent states" on July 2nd. Read the Congressional record for July 2nd, or, the final paragraph of Jefferson's DECLARATION for the confirming evidence.> > Later on, when Congress authorized the formal, "autographed", edition of Jefferson's DECLARATION, which autographed edition is the second printed edition of August 2,1776, the title was deliberately changed to

fit the political and legal realities of who in America was really in charge, either the Congress or the States. Clearly, as it turned out, the States. > > Here's the second edition's title: quote "The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" unquote. Please observe that I have typed it faithfully, exactly to the original type-case: please see the lower type-case "u" in "united" and the upper type-case "S" in "States". Trust me, the lawyers knew exactly what was to be printed, and how. "united States" is the designated title of the 13 States in the Continental Association [it really is "u..nited S..tates". [To be doubly sure, I'm looking at for the umpteenth time my facsimile copy of the August 2, 1776 edition as I type this post]. > > Please appreciate how jealously the individual States guarded their sovereignties. Getting to the heart of the matter, the States were

only "united" in the prosecution of the war and its diplomacy. No small task, to be sure. However, forget what learned college professors may have written from time to time about this, Congress was not a Government; it was a diplomatic conclave of 13 States. The members of Congress were diplomats, not legislators. An Association is not a Confederation. The Continental Association is a lower case "union"; the American Confedration of February 2, 1781 was an upper case "Union". And what a difference a type "case" makes. By January 18, 1777 this second edition had been ratified by the "thirteen united States". In telling contrast, the first edition was all but forgotten. As "the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" as this stile appeared in the title legend on the published broadside of the first edition, """on July FIFTH 1776""", it turned out to be> both an inspiration and an embarrassment. Congress had, in the estimation of

many State legislators, jumped the gun by obviously and prematurely embracing an official stile designed only for the hoped for Confederation, not for the Continental Association of 1774-1776. > > So now, only half in jest, but in order to recommend away to clearly distinguish between the dueling SAMVA charts for JULY 2, 1776 and FEBRUARY 2, 1781, I hereby recommend for the Group's consideration that the nomenclature be revised, as below:> > JULY 2, 1776 = "SAMVA uSA"> > FEBRUARY 2, 1781 = "SAMVA USA"> > [> Cheers,> > JOHN > > > Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote:> Dear John,> > Thanks for clarifying it.> > It was that entity, the "Continental Association" born in October 1774, that decided to become INDEPENDENT on July 2, 1776. The gestation period was the time in between, still in the womb of

Mother England. > > July 2, 1776, was the "seed" moment. Everything else afterwards is the development of that SEED.> > Best wishes,> > Jorge> > > On 1/29/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote: Hi Jorge,> > The 1784-85 slump was a classic instance of market behavior in the aftermath of hyper-inflationary state sponsored money & credit increases.> > The famous expression in American history: "Ain't worth a Continental", wasn't referring to a poor performance on the battlefield by the patriot soldier, but to the collapse of the Continental currency on the eve of Confederation, because of desperate financing measures enacted by the States to prosecute the Revolutionary War. By 1780 the paper emissions were virtually stopped, and so the economy in due course crashed on the precipitate droping of the rate of increase of the

currency. Like taking the drugs supply away from the addict. > > Or, for another similar instance of the consequences of reckless government financing, just consider President Bush's financing measures for the U.S. WARS in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in any other nation in the region that may have been invaded by the U.S. while I was sleeping last night. The consequences to the currency of such recklessness will show its full force when President Bush is retired to his ranch in Texas, after January 2009. The grim reaper will come for the American Dollar. So for sure, we "ain't seen nothin' yet" as regards just how bad it may get on the downside for the once mighty Dollar. > > P.S.> > "CONTINENTAL" here, comes from the organizational title of the United Colonies, which complete title has been seldom referred to in history books. The complete title, thus: quote "American Association of

the Continental Congress", unquote, and sometimes mentioned by its abridged title: "Continental Association". The Association was united under the "Articles of Association", signed in Congress, Philadelphia, on October 20 and 22, 1774. Estimated time at completion of the signing on the 22nd, shortly after 1:00 p.m. These ARTICLES were later ratified on various dates in each Colony through August 1775.> > Cheers,> > JOHN> > > > Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote:> Dear John,> > Thanks for this article. It seems that too much central authority does not help much in a healthy development of any country.> > State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money > > The US rectified chart was in Mo/Me and Mo/Ke and the successive stationary transits of the nodes did

not help much, at 18º, 9º and 0º Leo/Aquarius, in 1784, and 21º Capricorn/Cancer in 1785.> > Mercury is lord of H11 (paper money), and is combust and placed with the Moon in the same axis of H9/H3, exactly afflicted by the nodes. > > Best wishes,> > Jorge> > > On 1/28/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 > wrote: > News & Commentary The Goal Is Freedom: The Lost Articles of Confederation January 26, 2007> > by Sheldon Richman > > > > Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman. > > > > The Constitution says that to be elected to the U.S. Senate, a person has to be 30 or older, a citizen for at least nine years, and a resident of the state from which the candidate is elected. > > > > Alas, it says nothing about knowing American history. > > > >

Good thing for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He'd have to find honest work. > > > > Interviewed after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, Graham was asked about the situation in Iraq. Trying to put the difficulties in perspective, he said the United States did not get its constitution until 1789. > > > > Buzz! Wrong answer, Senator Graham. But as a consolation prize you get to take home a copy of Merrill Jensen's book THE NEW NATION: A HISTORY OF THE UNIYED STATES DURING THE CONFEDERATION, 1781-1789. We will also throw in a copy of Herbert Storing's WHAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WERE FOR. And thanks for playing our game.> > Seriously, I realize that children learn virtually nothing about the eight years before 1789 during which the United States existed under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION & PERPETUAL UNION. But shouldn't someone who holds himself

qualified to be a U.S. senator know that what we call "the Constitution" was really America's second constitution? [*] > > [*]This means that George Washington wasn't really the first president of the United States. He was the tenth. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was first. Some people erroneously regard John Hanson of Maryland as first. Huntington's tenure, September 28, 1779 to July 9, 1781, was transitional; he was elected by the Continental Congress, but by the time ill health forced him to resign, the Articles were in effect. The first president elected under the ratified Articles was Thomas McKean of Delaware & Pennsylvania, July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782. Hanson, November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782, was the first to serve the full term, of which only one was allowed. "President" here meant precisely president of the United States in Congress Assembled. The degree of constitutional powers

of this president was roughly equivalent to those of the Vice President of the United States under the second Constitution, when the Vice President presides as President of the Senate. There> was no executive branch in or beyond Congress until 1789. The true executives in the Confederation were the individual State Governors. > > > The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and took effect after confirmed ratification on March 1, 1781. That was seven months before Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and two and a half years before the definitive Treaties of Paris/Versailles were signed on September 3, 1783. > > > > The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until "the Constitution" displaced them in 1789. The process by which the Articles were scrapped -- rather than amended -- in favor of an

entirely new blueprint was dubious. As the Anti-federalist "Federal Farmer" (most likely Melancton Smith of New York) wrote in October 8, 1787. > > > Quote "A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for -- the authors of this measure saw that the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started [sic], probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted -- a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was proposed." unquote [Emphasis added.] > > Eight years is a significant period for a nascent country to endure after breaking away from an empire. Sen. Graham's remarks were meant to suggest that what took place in the

United States during that time was similar to what's taking place now on in Iraq. But that is ridiculous. The 13 states did not embroil themselves in civil war or sectarian violence -- neither internally nor with one another. Quite the contrary. > > Freed from Central Coercion> > How was life under the Articles of Confederation? As Merrill Jensen writes, "Americans fought against and freed themselves from . . . coercive and increasingly centralized power . . . . They did not create such a government when the Articles of Confederation were written, although there were Americans who wished to do so. . . . Thus the American Revolution made possible the democratization of American society by the destruction of the coercive authority of Great Britain and the establishment of actual local self-government within the separate states under the Articles of Confederation." > > Under the

Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax or to erect trade barriers. If it needed revenue it had to petition the states. There was no separate executive branch, with all its potential for de facto quasi-monarchization. > > People in the new states, Jensen writes, were full of optimism about the possibilities ahead. Criminal codes were made more humane, with the death penalty removed for all crimes but murder and, in some cases, treason. Property qualifications for voting were abolished over time. Charities and mutual-aid societies were formed, along with library, scientific, and medical associations. Schools were founded. The union of church and state was increasingly opposed. "The steps in the direction of religious freedom and the complete separation of church and state were thus halting, but the direction was sure and the purpose was clear," Jensen writes. > > Of course there

was slavery, which contradicted the philosophy espoused in the Declaration of Independence. But some states moved against it. "Within a few years after 1775, either in constitutions or in legislation, the new states acted against slavery. Within a decade all the states except Georgia and South Carolina had passed some form of legislation to stop the slave trade," Jensen writes. New England states and Pennsylvania took steps toward abolition, and anti-slavery societies flourished. > > What about the economies of the states? We can infer much from the fact that those who wanted to overthrow the Articles for a new constitution warned of coming economic turmoil if the central government were not fortified. Hence turmoil was a prediction not a description. Although individuals (white males) were free to a hitherto unknown extent, the states were no models of laissez faire. (But then neither was the consolidated

national system after 1789. The first economic action of the first Congress under the Constitution was imposition of a protective tariff.) > > Rent-seeking (political entrepreneurship) was rampant in the states, as it has been in every real-world system. Subsidies, loans, trade restrictions, and land giveaways were common. In this largely agrarian society, Jensen writes, "the dominant note was sounded by American merchants and business men who lived mostly in the seaport towns. . . . Their power was born of place, position, and fortune. They were located at or near the seats of government and they were in direct contact with legislatures and government officers. They influenced and often dominated the local newspapers which voiced the ideas and interests of commerce and identified them with the good of the whole people, the state, and the nation." (Hence, the bad name "capitalism" has for many people.)

> > Merchants and manufacturers disagreed on what kind of government intervention should exist, but not on whether it should exist. That's because they had different competitors. Merchants liked imports but wanted barriers to foreign (especially British) shipping, while manufacturers wanted barriers to foreign goods and didn't care about shipping. Part of the impetus toward a strong central government was business's desire for a uniform national economic policy, since individual states, acting alone, could hurt themselves by having more stringent restrictions than their neighbors and one state could capture the lion's share of trade by competitively lowering its barriers. In other words, the consolidation of 1789 was part regulatory cartel. > > Regional Differences> > There were also regional differences. Most manufacturing was in the North, so protectionist sentiment was concentrated

there. The South had little manufacturing and wanted access to cheap foreign goods. Thus high protective tariffs found little support. Northerners who coveted the southern market realized that only a nationwide trade policy would serve their interests. On the other hand, southern farmers wanted as many shipping options as possible and had little interest in restrictions on foreign carriers. > > State economies suffered booms and busts -- and a depression in in 1784-85 -- thanks to paper money , government banking policies, and other intervention. But the crises were not extraordinary. As Jensen summarizes, "There is nothing in the knowable facts to support the ancient myth of idle ships, stagnant commerce, and bankrupt merchants in the new nation. As long as ago as 1912, Edward Channing demonstrated with adequate evidence that despite the commercial depression, American commerce expanded rapidly after 1783,

and that by 1790 the United States had far outstripped the colonies of a few short years before." > > Despite the heavy intervention, the states still had virtually an unprecedented degree of economic freedom. A person could easily get a plot of land and take care of his family by farming. There was no distant overbearing central bureaucracy to worry about. Contact with government was minimal. Imagine what the economic growth and the justice of income patterns would have been had the states practiced laissez faire! > > Thus contrary to Sen. Graham, pre-1789 America had a constitution, almost no central government, prosperity, and peace. Not too shabby. > > The reasons for junking the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution are worthy of study but too big a topic for today. Suffice it say, as Jensen did, that "the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of 1787 were

quite a different set of men from those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776." > > http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1065 > > > > > > Get your own web address.> Have a HUGE year through Small Business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finding fabulous fares is fun.> Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't be flakey. Get Mail for Mobile and > always stay connected to

friends.>

Never Miss an EmailStay connected with Mail on your mobile. Get started!