I don't think I've mentioned this before... it's the kind of thing Bradley would have noticed and mentioned in his column, but I don't think he ever did... and it crosses my mind every time I look at a modern presidential inauguration chart.
Since 1945, by constitutional law, an elected U.S. president's term begin precisely at noon on January 20. A technically separate matter is that a president's legal authorization to exercise the power of the president is attached to taking the oath of office, but the term itself begins January 20 at noon. (Before 1945, inaugurations were held on March 4.)
In 1945, Washington, DC was on Eastern War Time - same as daylight saving time, an hour different from standard time - but, beginning in 1949 with Harry Truman, every elected president has come into office exactly as 19° Aries has crossed Ascendant. This, of course, is the traditional exaltation degree of the Sun - theoretically the most solar degree of the zodiac.
This is most fascinating, since the post-WW II dividing line marks the start of what has often been called "the imperial presidency." This was most marked during the terms of Kennedy (Aries stellium), Johnson (Leo stellium), and Nixon (Sagittarius stellium), watered down after Watergate (Ford's term didn't begin with this pattern, though Carter's did), and has remained a strong character of the time since (compared to the presidency before Roosevelt).
Because the inaugurations are at four-year intervals, leap yer cycling removes year-to-year irregularities in Sidereal Time. The Ascendant is essentially the same position to the minute of arc, walked back 0°01'/year mostly due to precession. The latest longitude was 19°26' Aries in 1949; the most recent is 19°11' Aries in 2017. Every one of them has 1° Capricorn on Midheaven and 19° Aries on Ascendant.
This is just one more interesting little scrap of anecdotal information that seems to tell us that the traditional exaltation degrees - despite what we know of their historic origin in 786 BC - are accurate markers of tiny zones of distinctive planetary character.
Sun's exaltation degree & presidential inaugurations
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 19062
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: Sun's exaltation degree & presidential inaugurations
Most interesting Jim.
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 19062
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: Sun's exaltation degree & presidential inaugurations
There is an alternate explanation for this - or perhaps it's another example of the same thing: When George Washington was inaugurated for his first term on April 30, 1789, noon, in New York City, Sun was at... 19° Aries.
One theory: Modern charts were unconsciously aligned to make every elected president's inauguration put the Washington inauguration Sun on Ascendant.
Another theory: Even from 1789, 19° Aries has had a distinctive solar quality with respect to the U.S. presidency.
One theory: Modern charts were unconsciously aligned to make every elected president's inauguration put the Washington inauguration Sun on Ascendant.
Another theory: Even from 1789, 19° Aries has had a distinctive solar quality with respect to the U.S. presidency.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
Re: Sun's exaltation degree & presidential inaugurations
Even more interesting Jim. I know you are not in a position to watch youtube videos, but Ken Bowser has a most interesting youtube video with excellent charts showing the dates in history when Fagan discovered the Exaltations degrees in the Sidereal Zodiac. Would it be ok if I posted Ken's link for other members in the Aldebaran section?
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 19062
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: Sun's exaltation degree & presidential inaugurations
Sure, no problem. (It's just the standard stuff from Zodiacs Old & New, which everyone interested in Sidereal astrology should know and study.
BTW I discovered (and posted here somewhere years ago) that, with modern calculations, and assuming it was cloudy one day in Babylon (delaying one theoretical helical rising by a day), the possible error on these was 0° (Fagan thought it might have been earlier.)
BTW I discovered (and posted here somewhere years ago) that, with modern calculations, and assuming it was cloudy one day in Babylon (delaying one theoretical helical rising by a day), the possible error on these was 0° (Fagan thought it might have been earlier.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com