Before I begin this new article, it seems appropriate this time for me to offer a type of disclaimer in the form of a simultaneous reassurance to readers on the seriousness of the returns offered in this article. I’m really concerned people will see this as a melodramatic statement. I don’t want it matter of fact or melodramatic, rather just a situation that warrants one’s consideration.
My normal hours of sleep have been more than a little messed up for a few weeks now. As a result, I got up early enough to catch the morning news and a few bits of trivia caught my attention. Each of these bits will work their way into this article for a view of the US Independence Day in a vastly different way.
Some months ago, astrologer Gary Lorentzen had introduced the Powell chart to KISS (Keep It Simply Serious) Astrology, my Facebook group, and I was intrigued. For the first time, I was looking at a chart that felt right to me instead of a rectified or randomly guessed one many of us have seen through the years. Years ago, the US chart had been bandied about and tested with a variety of signs rising. The focus seemed to be a toss-up between the Gemini, Scorpio and Sagittarius charts–at least until the Sibly chart came to everyone’s attention.
“I’ve never ‘worked with’ the Sibly Chart, because it’s not a proper astrology chart,” said Ed. “If you are using a chart for July 4, 1776, timed to 5:10 pm, or thereabouts, it should be called the ‘Rudhyar Chart that is based on the Sibly Chart,’ because no one used that chart until Rudhyar came up with it in the 1970’s, in the book he wrote on the destiny of the USA.”
I too stopped trying to work with the US chart years ago because I just wasn’t seeing anything that seemed viable for me. To be sure, I felt somewhat silly thinking I wasn’t “feeling it” back then. Some of the world’s cream of the crop astrologers were using Sibly and were apparently quite content. But despite the doubts plaguing me when I took that stand, I had to own my truth–and my truth wasn’t any of the charts I was seeing. That remained the case until the Powell chart came to my attention.
Even though I could not initially justify the reason behind the Powell chart date of July 1 when I first began to work with it, this chart has been consistently working for me to this point. That, of course, begs the question: Are we celebrating American Independence on the wrong day?
This series of events could end here as I move further into the article, but it doesn’t. Remember I said I caught a few things on the morning news? For me, this is enough to explain perhaps why this chart works better than the one for the 4th. Consider these pages from the “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, MONDAY, JULY 1, 1776“:
On page 507, the “CONTINENTAL CONGRESS declared the UNITED COLONIES FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES.”
If anything, the question of the date might have been more appropriately a choice between July 1 and July 2. If we’re looking at the vote, then July 2 would have been more appropriate. July 4 was the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. But the actual vote had taken place two days before, and the decision that they were ready to head down this path to independence as well as their readiness to vote came on the 1st of July:
Wikipedia’s entry on John Adams points to David McCullough’s biography, John Adams, and its “extensive references to personal letters and documents” related to “the Declaration of Independence, while Adams wrote passionately and in detail about the events of July 2, the only notation he made about July 4 is that he took time off to shop for ladies’ gloves and a new thermometer. Adams wrote that on 2 July 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.” Obviously, with the time showing, I decided to create that chart too.
The Eastern 4th quadrant above-the-horizon dominance was visible in this chart. If anything, the energy becomes stronger with the 6-body planetary and luminary influences intercepted. But in contrast to the Full Moon, this instead offers a look at a series of Undecaquartisextile (165° – UQSXT) patterns that were in play. Each component of the Moon-Pluto conjunction in the 4th house pointed to a single UQSXT with the 10th house Sun, and each was reasonably in play with the placement of the Moon to the Sun forming a 167°37 aspect while Pluto was already at a 163°34 angle. But the two combined revealed a 26 Capricorn 08 midpoint which formed a 2-minute partile orb to the Sun! The Sun too establishes a semisextile to Uranus with a 2°22′ orb, resolving in a Blooming Undecaquartisextile at 24 Sagittarius 59, conjunct the IC. And then we see the Mercury semisextile to the Midheaven (MC) resolving in a Resonant Blooming Undecaquartisextile at 10 Capricorn 49, forming a 21-minute partile opposition to the Sun. But aspects prove nothing if the date or anything else about the chart is wrong.
If this had actually been the date, the chart seemed to point to something along the lines of a perfect recipe. The change in the foundations of the land as well as potential governmental influences stepped in beautifully. But the text itself, shown in the Wikipedia entry I posted above reveals a crystal clear reason why one source is not enough when that source isn’t primary. There have been times I’ve had no choice but to use Wikipedia as my source, and I’ve done so with a cringe. But when an actual primary source is available–for example, the Library of Congress–one is still better off referencing the primary resource instead of Wikipedia. While I’ve repeatedly emphasized this as my aversion to Wikipedia, some will still reference it. Primary sources can and do stand alone. My thanks to Gary Lorentzen here for catching a flaw in the McCullough text quoted above in Wikipedia: John Dickinson was from Pennsylvania, not from New York State. I had fallen for the error since my area of New York had legislators named Dickinson; however they didn’t date back to the date of the nation’s birth.
In the pages I’ve offered as graphics, above, pay close attention to John Adams’ words on page 505 when he already had known the vote would pass by a majority of members. Gary Lorentzen took time to explain to me the timing of these events: “According to the historical record that I’m aware of, they voted to approve the DoI language at 11 am on Jul 4th (again 11th hour), but had voted for independence 9 yes, 2 no, 2 abstentions on Jul 1. Delaware and [New York] abstained. NY because the British were in NY harbor with guns pointed, and Delaware because their entire delegation wasn’t present (Caesar Rodney). Dickinson thought it was a done deal and left, leaving the Penn delegation to participate in the 2nd vote on Jul 2, at which time they voted for independence without Dickinson there to direct them. South Carolina had voted no on Jul 1, but realizing there would be no reason to vote no again, voted with the majority on Jul 2. Only NY once again abstained.” I was more than a little comfortable at this point with Gary’s logic since he’s more importantly not only an astrologer but one of the best sources I know whose degree is actually in history.
As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been working with the Powell chart for a while now and am reassured this is the right one for my use. Of course the most pointed and immediate difference I noticed between the July 2 reading of the Declaration chart and the July 1 Powell chart lies in the shift of dominances. If you recall, the July 2 chart showed an Eastern 4th quadrant above-the horizon dominance while the Powell chart shows a Western below-the-horizon dominance with a 2nd and 3rd quadrant even split, indicating the interactive share of power: The 2nd quadrant can certainly point to these Founding Fathers acting on the wishes of the people they’re representing from each of the colonies while the 3rd quadrant would indicate their need to work cooperatively together for the common goal “of, by and for the people.” For me, this is one of the most outstanding factors of the Powell chart that somehow never seems to get addressed in these charts. Perhaps we should be discussing these things.
Obviously in 1776, many of the meetings would have had to have been quieter. As Gary had pointed out about New York State’s having abstained since the British were in New York Harbor, the situation of that period would have brought to mind the dangers of any of the Founding Fathers, if caught, being charged and potentially put to death for sedition. On another level, however, it also brings to mind the right of any of us to retain our privacy in our voting choices.
At the same time, take note of the anaretic degree of Libra sitting at the MC, indicating the shift from the old way of life into the new world in which control could be said to be self-ordained rather than externally. While I don’t always use the Sabian Symbols as much as I could or some might feel I should, I will this time because they seem highly relevant. I especially like the comments Dane Rudhyar makes in The Astrological Mandala for the Ascendant and Midheaven degrees and have decided to reference these since this is a chart focused more about the entire body of the nation instead of related to a single individual’s potential needs. At a time when people are speaking about the United States and its relatively soon Pluto Return (first touch in February 2022), the reminder of “for the good of all” plays strongly in my mind. Where better than in the US chart–whichever one we see as representative of what the nation was at the time of its founding–and where we would head from there on?
Rudhyar writes of the Ascending degree, “PHASE 276 (CAPRICORN 6°): TEN LOGS LIE UNDER AN ARCHWAY LEADING TO DARKER WOODS” and adds “The need to complete any undertaking before seeking entrance to whatever is to be found beyond” in the keynote. While the keynote seems to remind me of the introduction to StarTrek, I confess, the intent Rudhyar had in this phrasing becomes clear in the paragraphs that follow: “Number 10 is a symbol of completion; it symbolizes even more the revelation of a new series of activities just ahead. Yet unless the concluded series is brought to some degree of fulfillment, nothing truly significant is likely to be accomplished by a restless reaching out toward the as-yet-unknown. Number 10 is a symbol of germination, but the seed (Number 9) must have matured well. No natural process can be accelerated safely beyond certain limits.
“This represents the first stage in the fifty-sixth five-fold sequence. It establishes a foundation for what will follow. Here man reaches a THRESHOLD in which he may have to pause in order to safeguard his further advance.”
Surely this stands as a natural description of what the new nation was facing in the days and years ahead! The Founding Fathers could not stop now or nothing of significance would have followed. The intention had to be followed through with complete conviction and determination, leaving as few stones unturned as possible to ensure that the foundation of the nation would be strong and as secure as possible.
The title of the next one, “PHASE 210 (LIBRA 30°): THREE MOUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE ON A PHILOSOPHER’S HEAD” seemed to fall flat for me until I read the rest:
“KEYNOTE: The fulfillment of man’s power of understanding at whatever level of existence the person operates.
“A true philosopher is a man who is able to “understand,” not merely “know,” the processes of life as he comes to experience them directly. He is the man of wisdom, different indeed from the man of science; for while there must be knowledge before understanding, knowledge alone can be both barren and destructive of wisdom. This peculiar symbol refers of course to “phrenology,” which is usually considered a pseudo-science, but may provide significant indications. Number 3 always indicates a state of completion. The symbol implies a fulfillment of philosophical understanding, which obviously has nothing to do with academic degrees or the writing of successful treatises on abstract concepts.
“This fifth stage symbol is the last of the Libra series: Understanding and wisdom develop in terms of the life of community and through experiences provided by interpersonal and group relationships. Cultural factors are always involved, even though true wisdom transcends cultural values and is rooted in the essential nature of Man. What is at stake here is A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE, based on universals.”
While some may fail to see the symbolism in this interaction with the Midheaven, it again speaks to me as wise words to the future of the nation. Michel-Guillaume Jean de Crèvecoeur wrote “What is an American?” in his “Letters from an American Farmer.” The long version of this is Letter III in pdf. The short version is a single essay Both are worth your time reading–if you have the time. While de Crèvecoeur was born to French aristocracy, his take on American life at that time (these were published a mere 6 years into the new nation’s infancy) lends a clearly philosophical perspective to what life was in the former colonies in this new nation. His words epitomize the concepts about which Rudhyar had written for this degree at the MC.
I must confess here that I wasn’t quite sure whether to go with the next chart–or start winding down but I really wanted to point to a number of curious points about the dates and events linked to this article. Officially, July 4 is said to be independence day. Ironically, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams–both presidents–were not only friends but running mates when Jefferson was running for the presidency. Adams was his vice-president. But they had something else in common for that matter: They died 5 hours apart, or so it’s said; but then McCullough, in the John Adams biography, erred with important details about the 2nd of July 1776, so I confess I’m a bit hesitant to take this to the bank either so to speak. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia reference you now know grates on me, in footnote 105 says, “On July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Adams died at his home in Quincy, at approximately 6:20 PM.[105 – McCullough, John (2001). John Adams. Simon & Schuster, p. 622.]” If that’s true, then we’d anticipate, for those who would like to play with the timings, Thomas Jefferson’s having passed around 1:20 in the afternoon since another reference had said he’d died “five hours earlier at Monticello.” Take it for what it’s worth.
And one final bit of trivia about July 4, this time in 1803: John Adams II (not John Q. Adams) was born on this date too!