My Part of A Conversation With A Western Siderealist: WHY JULY 2ND 1776

[Guest guest]

SUBJECT: BOYD CHART JULY 6TH 1775 & JULY 2ND 1776

 

Hi:

 

Dear XXXXX.. Your comments are really sharp and cut to the bone of the matter.

 

Here's the major consideration overlooked in all discussions of the Boyd Chart by astrologers: The Declaration of July 6th 1775 was not a Declaration of War in the sense that was the declaration of war by the U.S. Government on Japan on Dec 8, 1941. 1775's was simply a Declaration of the many accumulated grievances, in justification of the defensive combative actions of the colonies necessitated by the war that had started on April 19th. A declaration replete with an olive branch to the British Crown (it's at the tail end of the document in question, by the way) with the hopes that the Crown would intervene on behalf of the colonies and get Parliament and the colonial authorities to desist and stop the civil war. Thus it was hoped, to leave the colonies free to govern themselves while continuing as part of the State of Great Britain. The Congress knew this was a war against the British Government, a civil war, not against the State

of George III, a revolutionary war; Admittedly for some, a fine constitutional point, but the failure to grasp its crucial significance has lead to lots of confusion among the mundane astrologers. On July 2, 1776 the civil war became revolutionary.

 

What's for me really all the more sad and perplexing at the same time, as regards the interminable wrangling among astrologers, is that the issues of concern to astrologers regarding the birth date of the U.S. were laid out quite clearly as early as 1922 by Carl Becker in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL IDEAS. As recently as Pauline Maier's work on The Declaration, (1997), the historical scholar-community continues to accept Becker's basic

findings:

 

First July 6, 1775: Becker clearly demonstrated that the "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms" was unambiguously a document of reconciliation, not independence (See pages 126-128). Not a declaration to commence war as commonly historically understood, and mentioned in my para #1. Boyd failed to read and/or comprehend that document in its entirety.

 

As for the major events of the first week July 1776, Becker treated it as a straightforward matter of fact that sovereignty, which is independence, which two kindred concepts essentially define a state, was co-incident with the adopted resolution of July 2, 1776, which adoption then and there transformed the United Colonies into the United States;

 

Quoting from Becker’s Introduction, (page ix), the July 4th Declaration and "what this document purported to be. It turned out not to be the formal act of separation from Great Britain, voted for by Congress on July 2nd...But an argument in support of that action". However the real conversation stopper for the doubters of the July 2nd date is contained in the opening 3 pages of the first chapter, first (page 3): "It is often forgotten that the document which we know as the Declaration of Independence is not the official act by which the Continental Congress voted in favor of separation from Great Britain.....This Resolution of Independency was finally voted by the Continental Congress on the 2 July 1776...STRICTLY SPEAKING, THIS WAS THE OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE" (Becker's words, emphasis mine); "and if we were a nation of antiquaries we should no doubt find an incongruity in celebrating the anniversary of our independence on the 4 of July" ...then second (page 5): "It is true, the Declaration, in the form adopted by Congress, incorporates in its final paragraph the resolution of July 2; and so the Declaration may be said to be a declaration of independence, in as much as in it Congress once more declared what it had already declared two days before. NEVERTHELESS, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION WAS NOT TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, BUT TO PROCLAIM TO THE WORLD THE REASONS FOR DECLARING INDEPENDENCE. IT WAS INTENDED AS A FORMAL JUSTIFICATION OF AN ACT ALREADY

ACCOMPLISHED" (Becker's words, emphasis mine).

 

There's really not much more to be said, essentially speaking on the matter of, (paraphrasing Boyd), "the True Birthday of the U.S." To dispute July 2, 1776 is to do so in flagrant disregard of the history concerned. Mundane astrologers continue to mystify me on this particular

question. Historians have provided the research which settles the matter of the date. (Yet, however, the matter of the hour on that date is not so readily ascertainable given the records left for that week. So there's rectification work to be done, beyond Armistead, come what may by dint of further historical research.). Astrologers' defenses of other chosen birth dates are without historical merit: most notably those of July 6, 1775; July 4, 1776; November 15, 1777; March 1, 1781, (strictly historically speaking). How can mundane astrology ever achieve the status of a science if its practitioners willfully disregard the findings of the historians??

 

I think I'll sign off here.

 

Best wishes & thanks again,

 

John T W B

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun!