1811 & 1812 New Madrid Earthquakes

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Please post day, time, and location (epicenter coordinates if possible) in a new thread with nothing else (except maybe a general link describing it such as a Wikipedia link). I'll run a standard breakdown when I return from Arizona late in the week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%8 ... arthquakes

[SteveS]

Jim, no need to respond to this until you get back home from your trip, but I wanted you to see DC’s 1811 Cansolar preceding the Dec 16 New Madrid earthquake in Solar Maps (link below).

https://ibb.co/3BpC8YH

Note how the Moon-Mars-MC lines run across the New Madrid fault in the middle of the USA. When you get back off your trip and have time, I am really looking forward to your analysis for these New Madrid earthquakes in 1811-1812.

[Jim Eshelman]

December 16, 1811, 8:15 UT, near New Madrid, MO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%8 ... arthquakes

The name of this event is stated in the plural because it was a series of earthquakes over [specify period of time]. However, they all began with a single quake, variously rated at between 7.2 and 8.2, on December 16, 1811 (with a 7.4 aftershock six hours later). Two more quakes, similarly strong, hit in the following two months (January and February 1812), though the December 16 double quake was the main event.

All of these were in a tight zone near New Madrid, MO (which was then part of the Louisiana Territory, sparsely settled). This is 36N35, 89W32, almost exactly at the estimated epicenter (36.4° N, 89.6° W), so I'll use New Madrid in calculations. This is in the southeast corner of Missouri in the area locals call "the bootheel" from it shape (in the Ozarks). The first, main quake was actually in the current borders of Arkansas. The quake's effects were felt across wide areas, perhaps as far as the eastern states.

The second quake occurred exactly six hours later at 14:15 UT (also in today's Arkansas). The follow-up quakes (which seem to be distinctive quakes, not aftershocks, though M7+ aftershocks had occurred) were January 23, 1812, 15:00 UT (M 7.0-8.0) and February7, 1812, 9:45 UT (M 7.4-8.6). This last one destroyed the town of New Madrid. (Each quake crept slightly farther north.)

Wikipedia says these "remain the most powerful earthquakes to hit the contiguous United States east of the Rocky Mountains in recorded history." (The wording excludes the massive Alaska quake in the 1960s and the various California quakes.)

Wikipedia has witness quotes that reflect the nature and intensity of these quakes. The first is from John Bradbury, a scholar who was on the Mississippi River that night. (His report of when it began is a few hours earlier than when scientists have timed the quake [not that the time difference matters much]):

After supper, we went to sleep as usual: about ten o'clock, and in the night I was awakened by the most tremendous noise, accompanied by an agitation of the boat so violent, that it appeared in danger of upsetting ... I could distinctly see the river as if agitated by a storm; and although the noise was inconceivably loud and terrific, I could distinctly hear the crash of falling trees, and the screaming of the wild fowl on the river, but found that the boat was still safe at her moorings. By the time we could get to our fire, which was on a large flag in the stern of the boat, the shock had ceased; but immediately the perpendicular banks, both above and below us, began to fall into the river in such vast masses, as nearly to sink our boat by the swell they occasioned ... At day-light we had counted twenty-seven shocks.

Eliza Bryan in New Madrid wrote (citing what appears to be the correct time):

On the 16th of December, 1811, about two o'clock, a.m., we were visited by a violent shock of an earthquake, accompanied by a very awful noise resembling loud but distant thunder, but more hoarse and vibrating, which was followed in a few minutes by the complete saturation of the atmosphere, with sulphurious vapor, causing total darkness. The screams of the affrighted inhabitants running to and fro, not knowing where to go, or what to do—the cries of the fowls and beasts of every species — the cracking of trees falling, and the roaring of the Mississippi — the current of which was retrograde for a few minutes, owing as is supposed, to an irruption in its bed — formed a scene truly horrible.

The future fourth governor of Illinois, John Reynolds, wrote decades later in bigraphy:

On the night of the 15th of December, 1811, an earthquake occurred, that produced great consternation amongst the people. The centre of the violence was in New Madrid, Missouri, but the whole valley of the Mississippi was violently agitated. Our family all were sleeping in a log cabin, and my father leaped out of bed crying aloud "the Indians are on the house" ... We laughed at the mistake of my father, but soon found out it was worse than the Indians. Not one in the family knew at the time that it was an earthquake. The next morning another shock made us acquainted with it, so we decided it was an earthquake. The cattle came running home bellowing with fear, and all animals were terribly alarmed on the occasion. Our house cracked and quivered, so we were fearful it would fall to the ground. In the American Bottom many chimneys were thrown down, and the church bell in Cahokia sounded by the agitation of the building. It is said the shock of an earthquake was felt in Kaskaskia in 1804, but I did not perceive it. The shocks continued for years in Illinois, and some have experienced it this year, 1855.

[Jim Eshelman]

December 16, 1811, 8:15 UT, near New Madrid, MO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%8 ... arthquakes

The first quake occurred just after 2 AM locally, a few hours after a New Moon, with Moon separating by 2° from conjunct Saturn and applying 2° to oppose Jupiter - but the Moon-Saturn conjunction was only 0°51' wide in mundo. Nothing was exactly angular, so, as happens at least half the time, the "event chart" itself is of minimal importance. (The New Moon had been at 1:09 PM LMT the prior afternoon with a Mercury-Venus conjunction on MC - not at all a fitting astrological symbolism, though the increased gravitational or tidal pressures were surely a factor in the timing.)

Year: Capsolar {+3}
[I don't think you can get more dramatic, reality-altering, and eerie than Neptune-Pluto. The Mercury-Pluto square (here by PVP) is not only common for over-the-top earthquakes, it here gives the 'second factor' that permits me to give the chart a +3.]
Pluto on Dsc 0°05'
Neptune on IC 1°27'
-- Mercury-Pluto sq 1°18' PVP
-- Neptune-Pluto sq 1°22' M

NOTE: As Steve pointed out, the Cansolar was also interesting with a 0°24' Moon-Mars opposition, both planets closely angular.

Bridge {+3}
t Neptune on Capsolar angle all year
CapQ Moon co s/p Neptune 11/11-1/12
t Mars on Cansolar angle 12/7-12/23
Event window: Dec 7-23

Quarter: Libsolar {+1 or +2}
[Again the Neptune-Pluto mundane square foreground. However, with Neptune more widely angular and the Moon-Jupiter (which existed worldwide but was closer for this location) the score is reduced. Consider this chart a trigger showing the quarter in which the Capsolar would manifest most strongly.]
Pluto on Dsc 2°33'
Saturn and Neptune more widely foreground
-- Neptune-Pluto sq 1°31' M
Moon-Jupiter sq 1°03' M

Month: Caplunar {0}
Moon on EP 1°58'
Jupiter and Saturn more widely foreground
-- Jupiter/Saturn on horizon 0°09'

Week: Liblunar [0}
Moon on Nadir 0°50'

NOTE: For some parts of the area, this ingress was probably dormant, so I'll mention that the Canlunar a week earlier had foreground Venus-Saturn conjunction and Mercury-Pluto square, though this would not have been an active chart for New Madrid itself.

Day: Capsolar Quotidian & Transits {+2}
[Q angularities are mixed, though the Uranus is exactly right. It is the worldwide Moon-Neptune conjunction that makes this event - including the bizarre behavior of the river - seem quite right. Worth +2 I think.]
p Moon-Neptune co 0°06' [and t Neptune co p Moon 1°00']
p Asc co s Uranus 1°31', s Jupiter 1°44', t Uranus 1°32'
-- t Uranus [29:05] co s Jupiter 0°12'
--------------------------------------------
t Neptune sq s Asc 0°00'

Day: Cansolar Quotidian & Transits {-1 / +2 = +2}
p Asc co t Mercury 0°40', t Venus 1°54'
----------------------------------------------
t Mars sq s MC 0°21'

[Jim Eshelman]

The second quake occurred exactly six hours later at 14:15 UT...

At this time, I won't do a detailed analysis of the follow-up quakes, since everything really arose from the first one. Nonetheless, I want to make a few remarks.

The second (immediate follow-up) quake occurred six hours later as the Mercury-Venus conjunction rose. This is in no sense sound symbolism for the earthquake (though this second nearly-as-large quake didn't seem to cause any unique damage). As both luminaries had recently risen (Moon not too long before), I suspect there was an extra gravitational or tidal tug on the region just before the quake. Not a big deal.

The follow-up quakes (which seem to be distinctive quakes, not aftershocks, though M7+ aftershocks had occurred) were January 23, 1812, 15:00 UT (M 7.0-8.0) and February 7, 1812, 9:45 UT (M 7.4-8.6). This last one destroyed the town of New Madrid.

These two are of some interest because they did not occur under the same Capsolar as the original quake. (Pluto was most angular at the time it struck.) A new Capsolar occurred January 13, 1812 with Neptune most angular, involved in two aspects with non-foreground planets: another virtually exact mundane square to Pluto and a mundane square to Mars. Certainly this was enough to keep the psychological and physical shake-up continuing a while. (The most recent live lunar ingress was the Liblunar January 7 with a Mars-Neptune square closely angular and, overall, a foreground Mars-Neptune-Pluto configuration.) It happened the day CapQ Asc opposed ingress Mars.

The fourth (Feb 7) quake, which actually destroyed New Madrid, struck as Jupiter set, which again suggests that event charts themselves aren't all that important (presuming the given hour for it is correct). It was under the same dormant Caplunar as the January quake, under a Liblunar with Uranus 1°00' from Descendant, appropriate timing for a shaker-and-breaker.

CapQ angles again singled out the day, with ingress Mars and Pluto straddling the Q angle and - consistent with the "loss of an entire community" symbolism, a distinctive Venus-Pluto conjunction formed near that angle for the day the town was destroyed. Equally precise, transiting Saturn was minutes from CapQ EP-a (with t Mars on IC).

These Capsolar Quotidians are worth spelling out more exactly. For the coordinates of New Madrid:

Quake 3: January 23
[In addition to t Mars within 1° of CapQ Dsc]
24°24' Aqu - s Pluto
24°36' Aqu - t Pluto
26°34' Aqu - s Mars
26°11' Sco - earthquake MC
27°23' Leo - CapQ MC

Quake 4: February 7
23°38' Aqu - t Venus
24°24' Aqu - s Pluto
24°55' Aqu - t Pluto
25°38' Sco - CapQ Asc
26°34' Sco - s Mars

12°13' Sag - t Saturn (EP-a 0°13')
12°26' Sag - CapQ EP-a
13°17' Vir - CapQ MC
15°07' Pis - t Mars

[Jim Eshelman]

December 16, 1811, 8:15 UT, near New Madrid, MO

Steve especially asked that I look at the possible effect of two prior solar eclipses on this quake. At least in folklore, these two quakes a few years apart seemed to have a special relevance for the New Madrid area. These two quakes reportedly occurred June 16, 1806 and September 17, 1811.

Let's check the astronomy first: A total solar eclipse indeed occurred June 16, 1806. The eclipse chart itself did have Pluto setting near New Madrid with a Mars-Neptune opposition not far off the meridian. The convergence of those lines was in Minnesota. The actual eclipse path was very broadly in the same part of the country, passing through northern Missouri. None of this singled out the Ozarks in particular, though all of the effects seemed to cluster somewhere in the general neighborhood (which could, I suppose, have had a general "averaging" effect).

The September 17, 1811 annular (non-total) eclipse was closer to the Zenith in New Madrid. For the world in general, it was square Mars exactly and had a Venus-Saturn-Pluto T-square (Saturn rising in New Madrid) so - if these eclipses have distinctive astrological importance in the same sense as ingresses, makes it an unusually important chart for that region: The Saturn-rising line goes right through Missouri's bootheel, and the other angularities are nearby.

The path of totality, however, goes nowhere near the area. It passes from northern Minnestoa to Virginia. The New Madrid area is just within the 75% coverage area, which I suppose could have been regarded as very broadly in the eclipse path, but not on the line of expected maximum effect by the usual rules.


The real question here - that is, the question Steve asked me (as I understood it, anyway) - was what I thought about the effect of this eclipse, as an astrologically causative factor of this earthquake. Here are my thoughts:

First, I don't come into this question with a strongly positive of opinion of the astrological impact of eclipses. I think astrologers vastly overrate them. This is partly due to an opinion, from primitive times forward, that eclipses are something supernatural and the most dramatic visually observable thing to come along from time to time. Also, Tropical mundane astrologers don't have that many major, reliable tools and, in their absence, rely heavily on syzygy charts (of which the most important are eclipse charts). They do have importance though: A lot of current thought treats them as primarily destabilizing especially where they are visible. While I think that "visibility" rule mostly is a hang-on from ancient times when one only new about eclipses if you could look up and see them, I lean toward accepting something similar: It seems to me that eclipses are intensifications of whatever else is happening astrologically in an area (primarily through its ingresses). I'm not sure eclipses so anything distinctive by themselves, but they do tend to cross areas that burst into the headlines for reasons evident in their concurrent Sidereal solar and lunar ingresses.

So, I find New Moon and Full Moon charts of mixed value - sometimes stunning in their effect and much of the time utterly missing the mark (meaning, they seem to have value but aren't reliable). In particular, they don't seem to localize, since local angularities are rarely what's important about them. Solar eclipses, then, are unusually high-powered New Moons that do also have a localization ability by where the eclipse path goes (and perhaps differently by where they are angular).

Next is the question of how long an eclipse effect lasts. Most books speak complete nonsense on this, often assigning rules that extend them many years past their occurrence. In the best case this makes them impossible to test. For example, a common rule is that a solar eclipse's effects last as many years as the eclipse lasted in hours (commonly two years). I am certain that most of its astrological effects last only through the immediate aftermath, typically no more than five weeks. However, one could reasonably argue - as Bob Jansky did - that since there are typically two solar eclipses a year, the most recent solar eclipse is always in effect and, therefore, has an approximately six-month life. This BTW would be a good fit for the 1811 New Madrid effect since all the main quakes occurred by February 7, 1812, before the next eclipse February 12, 1812, which had no unique connection to the area.

In fact - thinking aloud for a moment - if I did not have Sidereal solar and lunar eclipses as a backbone of mundane analysis, I likely would experiment with the idea that the (usually) two solar eclipses each year marked out six-month zones within which lunar eclipses has lesser highlights, and the other New Moon and Full Moon charts twice each month marked short-term trends within that larger pattern. I doubt I'd be as happy as I am today, because these charts, while sometimes brilliant, are even more often complete duds. Nonetheless, it would be a reasonable path of exploration.

For the New Madrid quake, though, we have something much more important to consider IMHO. Above, I have emphasized that I was talking about astrological effects of the eclipses. I actually think - especially with earthquakes - that the astrological effect pales compared to non-astrological effects, especially geophysical effects in the form of tidal patterns that affect land masses just as much as they affect oceans.

Entering this domain, though, I think a firm answer requires a geologist or geophysicist opinion, not that of an astrologer. I'm not qualified to make a real assessment of this effect in New Madrid. With that caveat, I'll go ahead and give my lay opinion that there may indeed have been a real tidal affect connected with these quakes. I think there is zero reasonable doubt about tidal affects having a hand in earthquakes (some quakes showing it more than others). Consider this lineup:

• One must have a weakened or otherwise vulnerable local geology, such as a tectonic line that is about ready to shift.
• In this vulnerable state, the locale is vulnerable to a sudden unusual "tug" on that spot or on one of the plates. How much of a tug depends on how close to slippage it already is.
• The 1806 eclipse passed near the actual area - at least as close as northern Missouri - and could (would?) indeed have "tugged" on the local geology. The 1811 eclipse was not nearly as close, but likely had at least a little extra pull on central North America in general. Therefore, sure, this one-two punch (even if the second punch was a glancing blow) could have made the area vulnerable, starting to pull the trigger on a gun already loaded by the tectonic conditions.
• The purely astrological factors were extremely primed for this sort of event (or something else matching the same symbolism).
• The third New Moon after - three repeated high-tide cycles worldwide - occurred the afternoon before the first New Madrid quake. That was enough, given its geological readiness to pop!
• The nearly equal magnitude quake (#2) the next morning occurred soon after the separating Sun and Moon had risen (Moon still within 10° of the horizon). This, within that 24-hour period, was one of the points of maximum tidal stress at that location.
• Quake 3 had no unusual tidal characteristics. Nor did Quake 4 unless you count Moon rising over an hour and a half earlier which, I think, is too long. (In any case, the "run" of quakes had already been started at the December New Moon.)

[Jim Eshelman]

Here, then, are what I consider the important astrological take-aways in response to Steve's original questions:

1. The purely astrological timing was excellent, including the bang-bang explosive quotidians of #3 and #4.
2. The area was a geological time-bomb ready for a quake and then exposed to unusual repeated (cumulative) gravitational stress over a few years, climaxing on days and at times when local tidal stresses were strong. As a non-geologist, it seems to me that this was sufficient to set off the seismic event. That is, local non-astrological factors (that astrologers are in an unusually good place to calculate and see) determined what sort of astrological effect would occur.
3. The 1811 eclipse chart for New Madrid was unusually good. This is quite rare, though. It's been quite difficult for me to find eclipse charts (or even syzygy charts) that portray such events clearly. This one chart might be a one-off coincidence. To prove otherwise, astrologers would have to prove it at the statistical (mass-data) level and not get excited about single case examples.

[SteveS]

Excellent Jim, thank you so much. I learned a-lot from your detailed analysis. I will be coming back to this thread for more comments.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Year: Capsolar {+3}
[I don't think you can get more dramatic, reality-altering, and eerie than Neptune-Pluto. The Mercury-Pluto square (here by PVP) is not only common for over-the-top earthquakes, it here gives the 'second factor' that permits me to give the chart a +3.]
Pluto on Dsc 0°05'
Neptune on IC 1°27'
-- Mercury-Pluto sq 1°18' PVP
-- Neptune-Pluto sq 1°22' M

Without a doubt Jim for Neptune-Pluto event here with this Capsolar quake! Jim, I still don’t know how you see/calculate the 1,18 PVP square of Mercury-Pluto with Solarfire? I understand it is a PVP square, but can’t remember if the orbs can be calculated with SF? Can you recall any more examples of Neptune-Pluto events in your SMA book?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, I still don’t know how you see/calculate the 1,18 PVP square of Mercury-Pluto with Solarfire? I understand it is a PVP square, but can’t remember if the orbs can be calculated with SF?

You can't. That's why I need to get the calculation into TMSA one of these days.

I use a spreadsheet for it that does all the trig for me. I had a way to estimate it, and - once I figured out the way to really calculate it - I found that the estimation wasn't always the good.

But I'll work through an example: The Capsolar occurred January 13, 1811, 3:00:47 UT [time from TMSA] in New Madrid, MO 36N35'11" 89W31'40" [coordinates from American Atlas via Solar Fire]. Neptune's PV longitude is 1°27' in the 4th House, Pluto 0°05' in the 7th House, so they are both closely angular and in 1°22' mundane square. But I also see Mercury at azimuth 268°25' - just before the Vertex (270°) by 1°35'. Does it make an aspect to either Neptune or Pluto?

We rule out Mercury-Neptune, which (Vx to IC) would be a pure azimuth aspect. Neptune's azimuth is 354°57' (5°03' before IC). It's a wider square, 3°28' so we could count it (but I'm drawing the line at 3° in these charts: it is a weaker, wider aspect at best). We move on to Pluto.

Steve's question is: How do we tell if Pluto almost precisely on Descendant (0°05' above in both altitude and PVL) has an aspect to Mercury 1°35' before Vertex.

The estimation method from Solar Fire: Altitude is analogous to prime vertical amplitude. I subtract one from the other, being careful to note whether each planet is before or after the angle. Mercury at azimuth 268°25' is before Vertex. Pluto is 0°05' above, i.e., before Descendant. PV amplitude isn't on the SF Reports page, but it's on the "Mundane Data Large" page that Matthew had custom created (and then I moved the columns around a bit). I click the Page button and pick Mundane Data Large. I find that Pluto's altitude is 0°04' (TMSA gives 0°05') and Mercury's PV amp (prime vertical amplitude) is 1°23'. Having these two separate figures, I subtract Pluto's altitude (0°04') from Mercury's PV amplitude (1°23') and get an orb of 1°19'.

The real calculation: I use my meridian longitude spreadsheet (programmed with the trig formula to calculate the correct value). This measures each planet's position around the circle of the meridian (instead of around the prime vertical by PVL, the horizon by azimuth, or the ecliptic by longitude). It needs the azimuth and altitude of each planet. I type in Mercury's azimuth 268°25' and altitude -25°57', and Pluto's azimuth 245°48' and altitude +0°56'. The spreadsheet tells me that, in meridian longitude, Pluto is 29°37' in the 12th House and Mercury 0°55' in the 1st House. (These aren't real houses, but it's a way to describe them.) This puts them 1°18' apart which is extremely close to the estimate above. (Sometimes the orb is a degree or two wrong but, with Pluto so close to the horizon, this time it was nearly identical.

Can you recall any more examples of Neptune-Pluto events in your SMA book?

I never kept my angularity and aspect catalogue up to date - it was just way too much! - but here's what it has for that aspect. To my surprise, it already had the New Madrid earthquake, so we must have examined this in the past (already somewhere else on this forum). Notice that the other two earthquakes listed are two of the highest magnitude ever recorded.

Hurricanes & Floods: Sea Islands Hurricane (quarter). Galveston hurricane (quarter). San Felipe Segundo Hurricane (week). Okeechobee Hurricane (week). Hurricane Camille (quarter). Johnstown flood (week). North Sea flood of 1953 (day).

Other events: New Madrid earthquake (year, quarter). Great Alaskan earthquake (month). Kamchatka earthquake (quarter). Grenfell Tower fire (year). William the Conqueror conquered England (year, quarter). Magna Carta signed (month). Wounded Knee massacre for Washington (year, quarter, month, day). Prinz Valdemar sinking (year). 2017 Parliament attack (year). Brexit launched (year). 1st woman in space (week). Panic of 1819 (day). Panic of 1893 for DC (day). Adolf Hitler’s suicide (month).

[SteveS]

thanks Jim.

[Jim Eshelman]

I found the earlier discussion of the New Madrid quakes (from 2017 near the time when the last eclipse occurred across the area). I haven't compared it carefully but I hope I didn't say totally opposite things <g>.

https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1609&p=10114

[SteveS]

I haven't compared it carefully but I hope I didn't say totally opposite things

No Jim, what you said years ago matches what you recently stated in this thread about theses quakes. I am glad my sister-in-law got me to look at these quakes in 1811-1812, because I never actually knew there was a severe quake fault zone in this part of USA. Fascinating, I will pay more attention to this area with SMA in the future, but as far as I can understand--almost impossible to know of high % for a quake without some type of reliable geophysical data to forewarn of possibilities---then to take a look at the astrology.