Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I agree that there is a double rhythm to these cycles. Private focused revolutions precede publicly focused revolutions, and the next generation of prophets will probably be more like the Missionaries than the Boomers. However, I disagree with your assumption that a privately focused revolution in this turning is akin to turning back the clock to the 19th century Gilded age. There is no going back, there is only moving forward. But there are many forks in this road forward, and choosing the best path can often be very difficult. Choosing the wrong path could be disastrous. Still, it's highly unlikely that we'll make an about face and go back the way we came. Technology has advanced so much that going back to an 19th century lifestyle is next to impossible. And as technology continues to advance, it will continue to put more pressure on the generations to adjust their lifestyles, and as a result will push the cycles forward more quickly.

"Going back" in this context does not refer to technology; it refers to going back to a 18/19th century libertarian economics ideology, which libertarians currently espouse doing.

The reason the Civil War cycle was as short as it was was because the advances of the industrial revolution put so much pressure on the generations to change their lifestyles. Change became inevitable. We are seeing this today with the automation of society in this information age. There is already less need for human capital in manufacturing, and we're beginning to see less need for human capital even in the service industry. This is a good thing, yet we're still trying to keep the old model afloat with standard 40 hour work weeks, artificially created jobs that are often wasteful, minimum wage laws that do more harm than good and a bloated government that is increasingly reliant on debt to fund its aging programs. An adjustment has to be made. We shouldn't worry too much about the loss of jobs. Freeing us from menial tasks is a good thing. Lost jobs will inevitably be replaced by newer and better professions that will advance us further than we can imagine. This will happen naturally, without government intervention.

I agree about what the problem is. I see the solution as more government, not less. Those who benefit from the greater efficiency of automation, must in the future be required to pay for it, instead of getting off without paying, as they do now. That means those who continue to work in manufacturing and service industries need to be paid more for fewer hours of work. This takes "minimum wage laws" to a new level, applying it to all of labor. That would make "labor saving" meaningful, instead of just an excuse for the wealthy to make more money. The new professions may not fare well, if the people can't afford to pay for their services and products because they are unemployed or working 40+ hours for too little pay. I'm not sure what professions you are talking about. We will still need people to produce what the people need.

As for debt paying for aging programs, the programs are no more "aging" than the capitalist system is; it is just part of a society that is more advanced than a cut-throat 19th century libertarian capitalist one. The rich and upper middle class just need to be taxed more, and that will handle the debt as it did under Clinton.

It's true that fourth turnings, whether they be privately focused or publicly focused, are always periods of a high degree of civic mindedness (even when the hero generations are entrepreneurs) and increasing authoritarian government control. It's a necessary evil, it seems. While I don't condone all of Abraham Lincoln's actions during the civil war, it's pretty clear that his vision for the future (end the spread of slavery) was the morally correct one when compared to the south's vision for the future (spread slavery to new states). As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nevertheless, if faced with a societal problem, it has always been my belief that the solution that offers the most freedom to the most people is the one we should work towards. Sometimes, I admit, this is impossible, and we may have no choice but to pick the solution that offers less freedom. But we should only go that route if it's the only good option available. Perhaps Lincoln thought this too when he instituted the draft and declared martial law. Nevertheless, his overall goal was to bring freedom to more people, so you could say he was justified.

Our hero generation is not going to be a generation of entrepreneurs; though it will be in part. We won't be going back to libertarian economics, but forward into green economics. Green values will bring more freedom to more people. Freedom has many definitions, and is not limited to freedom from government restrictions on entrepreneurs; although that's what libertarians focus too much on. Freedom for the working people from economic tyranny and bosses is far more significant than entrepreneurs "freed" from government oversight and taxation. Until such utopian time as people with money are completely well-behaved and generous, government will need to be used to restrain and direct them so that they do not oppress the people, as they still do today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Our hero generation is not going to be a generation of entrepreneurs; though it will be in part. We won't be going back to libertarian economics, but forward into green economics. Green values will bring more freedom to more people. Freedom has many definitions, and is not limited to freedom from government restrictions on entrepreneurs; although that's what libertarians focus too much on. Freedom for the working people from economic tyranny and bosses is far more significant than entrepreneurs "freed" from government oversight and taxation. Until such utopian time as people with money are completely well-behaved and generous, government will need to be used to restrain and direct them so that they do not oppress the people, as they still do today.

A lot of what you're calling "green economics" is done by entrepreneurs though Eric; if someone owns a bicycle shop where many of the customers are people who want to use bikes as a form of "green transportation", then he's an entrepreneur. If someone owns a small neighborhood grocery store specializing in organic products, then he's an entrepreneur. These are businesses that exist for the purpose of generating a profit like any other business out there. I don't see entrepreneurship being incompatible with "green economics" or "green lifestyles." As a matter of fact, many people who support such measures and lifestyles lament the takeover of large chains such as Wal-Mart; so who do they end up supporting? Small businesses - i.e. entrepreneurs.

Originally Posted by Normal

A lot of what you're calling "green economics" is done by entrepreneurs though Eric; if someone owns a bicycle shop where many of the customers are people who want to use bikes as a form of "green transportation", then he's an entrepreneur. If someone owns a small neighborhood grocery store specializing in organic products, then he's an entrepreneur. These are businesses that exist for the purpose of generating a profit like any other business out there. I don't see entrepreneurship being incompatible with "green economics" or "green lifestyles." As a matter of fact, many people who support such measures and lifestyles lament the takeover of large chains such as Wal-Mart; so who do they end up supporting? Small businesses - i.e. entrepreneurs.

Yes I agree. I just don't agree with giant's ideal of substituting large-scale corporate entrepreneurs for governments. I'm not sure small green business will be a millie specialty, since hero generations tend to go for larger-scale activities. But some will, no doubt. I think there could be a real boom in small entrepreneurs and also cooperative in the next awakening, when the Green Revolution (established in the late 1960s, which had some of the same ideals as you describe) will reach it's climax of activism and change.

I tend to see the civil war saeculum this way:

previous fourth turning: 1773-1789
first turning: 1789-1815
second turning: 1815-1834
third turning: 1834-1850
fourth turning: 1850-1868
next first turning: 1868-1886

In any case, both the civil war and great power saecula would be a year or two shorter than the 80-plus year standard, and the last colonial saeculum would be closer to a normal modern length (5 years shorter than S&H say). Our current saeculum will run from 1946 to 2028 or 2029, and so back to almost 83 years, the standard length.

I agree that technological change speeds up saecula, but this also applies to political change. Not being an economic materialist, such as Brian is, I think ideas and political decisions also shape history, and that politics and economics reinforce and enhance each other in their effects. Despite advances in high tech, if anything I think tech change, and certainly political change, actually slowed down during this current saeculum-- especially more recently during the perpetual political stalemate we have been subjected to by the Republicans-- who wish to take us backward. The concern over ecology and global warming has also slowed down the previous methods of technological change and imposed some limits on it. A saeculum that is moving forward, naturally tends to move faster. Since our society has not on-balance been moving forward for 30 or 40 years, there is no reason to think our saeculum should continue to be faster than normal.

Since a first turning can in its early years feature disruptive events as we adjust to the new order, a Whiskey Rebellion would not in my opinion necessarily constitute a 4th turning event. In 1868, the end of the Johnson administration and succession by Grant changed the mood sufficiently to bring America into a first turning. Grant succeeded in calming the mood, and reconstruction continued in a less-militarized, drastic and angry way. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower are parallel war-hero presidencies.

I see the War of 1812 as definitely a 1T war, a follow up and finishing-up to the Revolution, and thus the end of the war should be the start of the 2T, if not later.

The American Experience program on the abolitionists confirmed my suspicion that, just as was true in Europe, 1834-35 saw the beginning of a period that was much less amenable to changes in consciousness and receptivity to idealistic movements than before, and an increasing rigidity in the divisions. Thus it was like the Culture Wars. 1848 was definitely the start date for the 4T in Europe, and so plausible here as well; but I think in America the Gold Rush was more of a 3T phenomenon, and ideally it is better to have at least 16 years for a turning. In 1850 Americans definitely felt the looming crisis which the addition of new states and territories after the War with Mexico brought forth. The extension of slavery into these new territories and states was the issue that sparked the increasing conflict, though more sparks would immediately follow (including the Uncle Tom's Cabin book which began to be published in a magazine in about June 1851).

The Compromise of 1877, which resolved the Hayes election and ended reconstruction, was very significant; however I think the main interest of the people by then was not the civil war conflict but the expansion of industry and settlement of the West. I don't see any reason to shorten the Gilded Age to just 9 years. It was a very influential cultural age that followed the civil war with an expansive, materialist time of building, so it had to be longer. I could still live with an 1865 end to the civil war turning, in fact. But on balance, I think the mood of the country was still so radical and angry that it is also justified to extend it to 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, proposed on June 13, 1866, was adopted on July 9, 1868, and this is a marker of a climax in fundamental 4T change. The 15th amendment was much less significant, and in any case remained a dead letter for 95 years.

Revising the dates for generations is tougher though. S&H did a lot of biographical research to establish their generation dates. They would need to be revised to eliminate the anomaly, and whether it can really be done I don't know. It would take further biographical scholarship. Perhaps Chas is up for it!

If we just entitle the Gilded as a civic generation, that is the simplest way to do it. I tend, for astrological reasons, to agree with the dates that S&H established. Dominant generations, including the Gilded, have been given as starting at or very close to the time when Neptune enters a cardinal sign (Aries, Cancer, Libra or Capricorn). But if you use my dates for the civil war turnings, the generations would not match up to them in the normal way for the civil war saeculum. Many more Gilded would have grown up in a second turning instead of a third, as heroes usually do. And truth be told, the Gilded probably had many nomad traits as well as civic ones. That might gell with gianthogweed's idea that they were a more private-oriented civic generation. The transcendental prophet generation might have started earlier, and a hybrid prophet-nomad generation would have followed them. But the revised generational dates suggested here are plausible. I wonder if they would stand up to thorough biographical research, however.

It's hard to get rid of the anomaly entirely. I attribute it to the drastic change which the civil war represented; yanking a country away from dependency on its southern half, a region so far retrograde and immoral as to be way behind the rest of the world, even as its northern half was more idealistic and advanced than the rest of the world. Even today, of course, we are still held back and shackled by this part of the country, and we may this time decide that, rather than trying to "reconstruct" Dixie, to finally let it go its own backward way in peace; together with some other similar "redneck" regions to its north and west.

The Compromise of 1877, which resolved the Hayes election and ended reconstruction, was very significant; however I think the main interest of the people by then was not the civil war conflict but the expansion of industry and settlement of the West. I don't see any reason to shorten the Gilded Age to just 9 years. It was a very influential cultural age that followed the civil war with an expansive, materialist time of building, so it had to be longer. I could still live with an 1865 end to the civil war turning, in fact. But on balance, I think the mood of the country was still so radical and angry that it is also justified to extend it to 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, proposed on June 13, 1866, was adopted on July 9, 1868, and this is a marker of a climax in fundamental 4T change. The 15th amendment was much less significant, and in any case remained a dead letter for 95 years.

Agreed. Things like the New Orleans Riot, the mob lynchings in Eastern Tennessee, and the KKK made the North jumpy and scared that the Civil War was going to spark back up. They're the reason why Grant was elected in the first place as he was seen as being able to solve these problems.

By 1870, the public was no longer worried or concerned whether there was another riot or a wave of lynchings or whether the KKK were active or not because things like the "Force Acts" were employed to solve the issues, and Grant was seen as having a handle on the situation. In fact Grant tried to get more funds to get more done and he found a growing opposition to such an idea. In 1868 and 1869 he had a "blank check" so to say, but by 1870 and 1871? The mood had changed and moderates were starting to replace Radical Republicans.

Revising the dates for generations is tougher though. S&H did a lot of biographical research to establish their generation dates. They would need to be revised to eliminate the anomaly, and whether it can really be done I don't know. It would take further biographical scholarship. Perhaps Chas is up for it!

May I strive to be worthy and equal to such an undertaking!

~Chas'88

What is it about 1834 that has convinced many of you that the unraveling began that year?
In everything I've read about that year I see nothing but pray-a-lot camp meeting type groaners and moaners, manifest destiny dreamers and schemers and a certain group in upstate New York that thinks that Jesus came to the Palmyra area and did some stone work--or something like that.

What about any of this is not awakening in nature?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

What is it about 1834 that has convinced many of you that the unraveling began that year?
In everything I've read about that year I see nothing but pray-a-lot camp meeting type groaners and moaners, manifest destiny dreamers and schemers and a certain group in upstate New York that thinks that Jesus came to the Palmyra area and did some stone work--or something like that.

What about any of this is not awakening in nature?

This is one of the reasons why I like to start the 3T earlier, in 1828 with the discovery of gold in Georgia. You had the first cohorts of the gold rush generation coming of age and and migrating south and west in pursuit of gold, freedom and autonomy. This was the beginning of the era of the cowboy and the wild west as settlements and towns on the frontier grew and expanded. These pioneers were rugged survivalists, definitely having more nomadic traits than the earlier transcendentals.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

This is one of the reasons why I like to start the 3T earlier, in 1828 with the discovery of gold in Georgia. You had the first cohorts of the gold rush generation coming of age and and migrating south and west in pursuit of gold, freedom and autonomy. This was the beginning of the era of the cowboy and the wild west as new settlements and towns started popping on the frontier. These pioneers were rugged survivalists, definitely having more nomadic traits than the earlier transcendentals.

Again, I bring up the point that if we use the dates you suggest, then calling that Idealist Generation the "Transcendental" generation makes little to no sense. The Transcendentals only cropped up as a movement in 1836, and were quite the elite little club. In fact, naming an entire generation after them would be like calling the Boomers the "Haight-Ashbury" or "Yuppie" or "Televangelist" generation. They're parts, but they sure as hell don't make a whole.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Again, I bring up the point that if we use the dates you suggest, then calling that Idealist Generation the "Transcendental" generation makes little to no sense. The Transcendentals only cropped up as a movement in 1836, and were quite the elite little club.

~Chas'88

I have a feeling S&H picked the name just as much for it's broader meaning as they did reference to the actual transcendental movement of the 1830s and 40s (which, as you implied, was hardly representative of the larger generation, even by S&H's dates). But the idealism that the movement espoused, of the individual over the institution, was representative of the larger prophet generation of that time, and led to the hyper individualism of the younger nomad gold rush generation.

Let's make a comparison with todays generations. The 1830s, by my dates, would be associated with the 1980s and early 1990s. Boomers would replace the transcendentals, and Xers would replace the Gold Rush generation. During this time Boomers were rising to respected and leading positions in academia, and Xers were their students. The transcendental movement is somewhat of a mirror to this situation. Remember all the self help books? The new-age trend, though it started in the 60s, didn't really hit mainstream culture until the 80s and 90s. Hell, you could say The Fourth Turning was part of this new "Transcendental" movement.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

This is one of the reasons why I like to start the 3T earlier, in 1828

But that creates a 2T of 13 years!
There's just no way that the anything in the 1820's is 3T. That is the decade that corresponds best to 1740 before it and the (gay) 1890's after it and yes the 1960's.
You're dealing with the heartland of an awakening era here. Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground put out their proto punk rock style in 1968. It was very preseasonal but it did pull the unraveling era all the way forward to 1968.

the discovery of gold in Georgia. You had the first cohorts of the gold rush generation coming of age and and migrating south and west in pursuit of gold, freedom and autonomy. This was the beginning of the era of the cowboy and the wild west as settlements and towns on the frontier grew and expanded. These pioneers were rugged survivalists, definitely having more nomadic traits than the earlier transcendentals.

Actually the lands west of the Appalachins began being the frontier in the late 1700's with Daniel Boone in Booneville, KY and areas like that. Just the other night I ran across a movie, don't ask me the name, that was based on settler families living in Ohio at the time it became a state in 1803.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But that creates a 2T of 13 years!
There's just no way that the anything in the 1820's is 3T. That is the decade that corresponds best to 1740 before it and the (gay) 1890's after it and yes the 1960's.
You're dealing with the heartland of an awakening era here. Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground put out their proto punk rock style in 1968. It was very preseasonal but it did pull the unraveling era all the way forward to 1968.



Actually the lands west of the Appalachins began being the frontier in the late 1700's with Daniel Boone in Booneville, KY and areas like that. Just the other night I ran across a movie, don't ask me the name, that was based on settler families living in Ohio at the time it became a state in 1803.

1812-1828 is not 13 years. Read my earlier post where I discuss the beginning of the 2T (I had originally considered 1807, but have since revised it). Westward expansion had been going on since the colonials first settled. And the first gold rush was in 1799. I timed it with the second gold rush of 1828 because it matched the timing when the first of the nomads (born 1809, cuspers born earlier) were coming of age. Even though the 1828 gold rush began with a migration southwards, the 1830s saw a massive migration westwards, spurred on by people hoping to find gold in these largely unsettled lands. You didn't really start seeing larger towns and cities popping up on the frontier until this period of time. This was around the time people started claiming "manifest destiny", which later in the 1840s became a rallying cry.

I can't see the War of 1812 as an awakening war. It fits too closely to the Korean War pattern S and H saw of a war that is an echo of the recently passed crises. Those kind of wars are by definition 1T wars.

Also, I happened to grow up in the town that boomed because of the gold rush of 1799--Charlotte. A branch of the US Mint was founded there to prevent gold shipmnt from being robbed on route to the headquarter mint in Philadelphia but the gold strike of 1799 had nothing to do with changing the turning mood. 1799 was a core 1T year everywhere in America, including Charlotte. And there's no reason to believe that a gold rush such as 1828 is by itself is a turning marker. If it were, we could all just say tha tthe Civil War 4T began with the California gold rush in 1849 and call it done.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Actually the lands west of the Appalachins began being the frontier in the late 1700's with Daniel Boone in Booneville, KY and areas like that. Just the other night I ran across a movie, don't ask me the name, that was based on settler families living in Ohio at the time it became a state in 1803.

Yep, the Boone movie based on that occurring about the time of the Revolutionary War: Daniel Boone (1936)

And is the film your referencing have Elizabeth Montgomery in it by chance? Hmm? If so, then it's called: The Awakening Land, and it's a mini-series which covers how settlers settled Ohio from the 1780s - 1810s. It's a great mini-series based on a series of books by the same author that wrote: The Light in the Forest (1953) -- which Disney later turned into a film in 1958 when everything frontier was popular.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Yep, the Boone movie based on that occurring about the time of the Revolutionary War: Daniel Boone (1936)

And is the film your referencing have Elizabeth Montgomery in it by chance? Hmm? If so, then it's called: The Awakening Land, and it's a mini-series which covers how settlers settled Ohio from the 1780s - 1810s. It's a great mini-series based on a series of books by the same author that wrote: The Light in the Forest (1953) -- which Disney later turned into a film in 1958 when everything frontier was popular.

~Chas'88

Maybe I should have specified that the film I ran across was in black and white and looked to be from the late 50s/early 60's era when so many of these films came out. I don't recall seeing anyone in this film who became famous for other projects.

One more note on our very early western frontier. From what I've been able to find from the spotty records my mother's great-great-great-great grandfather was born in England in 1715. By 1765 he was in America and he had settled in this county , which at the time was the frontier. For whatever reason this branch of my family never went futher west until my parents moved to California in 1956 which of course accounts for my Calfironia birth and early childhood. From early on there has been a western movement in America. And in terms of the civil war and continued regionalism we can see it in the fact that our northwestern states like Oregon and Washington have always culturally like new england whereas Arizona has often been almost a part of the deep south with cacti.

Getting back to the question of 1834 starting the unraveling I am looking for plausible reason why the 3T might have began that early. To me it seems that we have a long 1T/2T cusp starting with the Hartford Convention and going to at least the era of good feeling election of 1820. Once you get into the 1820's you see radicalized college students and the fragmenting of organized religion in search of true feeling, as opposed to understanding a rational God--a classic awakening era pattern.
I really don't see any turn towards unraveling behavion and mood until the Panic of 1837. Basically, the Van Bruin administration did nothing to help the unfortunate and everyone realized that they wer eon their own. After that, things seem to turn 3Tish fast until after the Mexican War. And then of course we hit the real cuspy 1850's.

So to sum up, I see a fairly clear 2T/3T line at 1837 and two very cuspy lines between 1815 to 1820 and later between 1850 and 1857. Everything else needed for building a plausible timeline for a four turning cycle falls into place fairly well. If there is a reason to consider 1834 as a serious candidate for a turning change year I can't find what it would be. After all, 1834 is still the Age of Jackson and sunny nonsense of an awakening does not seem to give way to an autumn feel until the cold blast of the Panic of 1837 sets in.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Maybe I should have specified that the film I ran across was in black and white and looked to be from the late 50s/early 60's era when so many of these films happened. I don't recall seeing anyone in this film who became famous for other projects.

Ahh well, still, check out the miniseries linked above, it's a great portrayal of what settling the American Frontier was like.

One more note on our very early western frontier. From what I've been able to find from the spotty records my mother's great-great-great-great grandfather was born in England in 1715. By 1765 he was in America and he had settled in this county , which at the time was the frontier. For whatever reason this branch of my family never went futher west until my parents moved to California in 1956 which of course accounts for my Calfironia birth and early childhood. From early on there has been a western movement in America. And in terms of the civil war and continued regionalism we can see it in the fact that our northwestern states like Oregon and Washington have always culturally like new england whereas Arizona has often been almost a part of the deep south with cacti.

My paternal grandmother's ancestors came to the US around the time of William Penn, in fact one was his surveyor who surveyed the land of the colony for him. They originally settled actually not that far from where I live currently--which was considered the Frontier at the time--then they slowly over the course of generations moved closer and closer to Philadelphia, until my parents reversed the trend and accidentally returned to the area that their ancestors came to first.

~Chas'88

Well there are a lot of interesting theories abounding. I think I'll add mine to see how much traction it gets. Considering that I and my mother were quite obsessed with Civil War history this may shed some light.

First I think it important to point out that the US has a mega saeculum patter, one in which we are in the mega-unraveling right now. As such the key ideas until the end of the next saeculum at later in this century, perhaps the end of the century, will be primarily of late-19th century origin. Just like the key ideas for the previous mega-cycle were from the Protestant Reformation period (though the Enlightenment as also certainly important).

As such the last Crisis-crisis resolution happened in or about 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution and the election of Washington as President. That answered the primary issue of the last saeculum namely that of self-governance, and how we would self-govern.

As such the High period was going to be slightly long lasting from 1789-1815 (or 26 years). This would conform to the expectation that turnings that match a mega-cycle turning in a saeculum would be slightly longer. As was the case with the Culture Wars in this saeculum (1980-2005), and the Missionary Awakening starting in the 1890-1912 (or 1915) [Or between 22-25 years].

Since this would place the War of 1812 in the 1T of the Civil War saeculum that means the Transcendental Generation would likely have been born from 1785-1810. Obviously a Prophet generation and would drive the Transcendental Awakening.

I would place the Transcendental Awakening from 1816-1836/37. Why? During this time period we had many religious movements (Harmonists, Shakers, Mormons and etc), new creations in technology that would be later adopted as standard (steam power ships and rail roads in particular) the rise of the Theory of States Rights (Popular in the South) and Abolitionism (Popular in the North).

In fact I would say that S&H were somewhat confused by the War of 1812 rightly perceiving it to be a 1T war, but not realizing that the war itself changed the mood of the country. From one where the focus was on expansion of the Republic to one where most people concerned themselves with their own improvements. A very 2T mood.

It was during this time the Nomad generation that is missing, I believe, was born. The 49er generation (as in the coming unraveling many young men would go off on a gold rush to California). If we assume that the average 49er was 20 that would place his birth year in 1829.

By 1837, with the end of 2nd Bank of the US an economic crisis preceded growing sectional divides. Abolitionism slowly gained more and more traction in the north, states rights and protect the "particular institution at any cost" gained traction (slowly at first) in the south.

In 1857 the Dred Scott decision took place and since 1850 and 1852 had started to radicalize the northerners in particular, and the south has always had its tendency toward radicalism anyway. I would place the start of the crisis for the saeculum at 1857. That crisis lasted well into the 1860s. In fact I would say that it did not end until 1876 with the end of reconstruction.

Some may point out that 1868 was a significant year as by that time the North was mostly over the Civil War and had started its 1T activity. However the South was definately in a 4T and kept the nation in that pattern until 1876.

---

TL;DR version

1789-1815: 1st Turning "Era of Good Feeling", Transcendentals Born--type Idealist.

1816-1837: 2nd Turning "Transcendental Awakening", 49er Generation Born--type Reactive

1838-1857: 3rd Turning "Sectionalism", Gilded Born--type Civic

1858-1876: 4th Turning "Civil War and Reconstruction", Progressive born--type Adaptive.

What S&H missed was the reactive (nomad) 49er generation who would assuming most of the men who rushed off to the gold fields in 1849 were in their early 20s would have been born around 1829.

THis is a repost from a different thread on a similar topic that is relevant here.

Originally Posted by Normal

Well, I feel like I kind of inspired this, since I started the thread on revising the Civil War saeculum's generations and turnings in the first place, so I definitely look forward to seeing what you come up with Chas. I am definitely not as qualified to comment on the subject as you or others here, though I do feel like I can lend some insight into the turnings. But the generations are a whole other story. I think this is something that needs to be undertaken - I had often heard people on the forums comment on how they don't agree with S&H official doctrine regarding that saeculum, but I couldn't find any thing that plainly spelled out what revisions people would make with regards to the generations or the turnings.

Nonetheless, the broad consensus here seems to be that for whatever reason, S&H got it wrong with regards to this saeculum and revisions need to be made. We seem to all agree that the Civil War saeculum a) had four turnings of normal length (approximately 20 years, give or take a few years), and b) a Hero/Civic generation, contrary to S&H's belief. From there, opinions will diverge, but it seems that all of us agree on at least those two points.

I was in the alternate 19th century saeculum camp for years. My reasoning (and I suspect most everyone else's) came from consideration of the turnings rather than the generations. In my own case I had developed correlations between the saeculum and certain empirical measures of economic, social, political and cultural trends that I used to define an empirical cycle that closely matched the S&H saeculum. Based on this concept I redrew the saeculum as something like 1860-77 (4T) 1877-1893 (1T) 1893-1914 (2T) 1914-1929 (3T). Others came up with similar schemes. After some strong prodding by John Xenakis I re-examined my databases, rebuilding them from a smaller set of solid, comprehensive sources, after which I concluded that the statistically-significant correlation between empirical trends and the saeculum I had seen eariler with problematic sources had vanished when I switched to sounder ones.

I no longer had a solid case to draw turning boundaries and I reverted back to the S&H dates, as they were determined from generations not events, which I had not done. Hats off to chas for making the attempt to do the generations.

************************************************** *****************************
I notice that the alternates being offered on this new thread are quite different from those offered a decade ago. Back then, the emphasis was on the turnings in the latter part of the 19th century, the civil war crisis tended to be started close to the S&H dates, usually in 1857. The major quibble then was a 4T ending date that seemed to be early. Others tended to draw it at the end of reconstruction in 1877 or with the Panic of 1873.* In this thread the emphasis seems to be on redrawing the turnings before the Civil War. Interesting, I wonder why the change? Could it be the experience of the present 4T, which seems more "Civil War like" than it would have a decade ago?


*My own approach was to use aligned cycles as a superstructure and then choose other people's dates that best fit. For example, the Panic cycle was one of these aligned cycles and suggested the dates given below on the left. The political cycle (another aligned cycle) suggested the dates given on the right. The suggestions from all relevant cycles were averaged together to obtain a composite, which was then used to pick one of the other people's cycle dates.

Panic Cycle . . Political Cycle
2T: 1819-1837 1828-1840
3T: 1837-1857 1840-1860
4T: 1857-1873 1860-1872
1T: 1873-1893 1872-1896
2T: 1893-1907 1896-1918
3T: 1907-1929 1918-1930

I notice that the alternates being offered on this new thread are quite different from those offered a decade ago. Back then, the emphasis was on the turnings in the latter part of the 19th century, the civil war crisis tended to be started close to the S&H dates, usually in 1857. The major quibble then was a 4T ending date that seemed to be early. Others tended to draw it at the end of reconstruction in 1877 or with the Panic of 1873.* In this thread the emphasis seems to be on redrawing the turnings before the Civil War. Interesting, I wonder why the change? Could it be the experience of the present 4T, which seems more "Civil War like" than it would have a decade ago?

This I think is due to myself, ASB'65, and another person whose screen name I can't recall at the given moment.

Personally when I'd first discovered the theory, what had originally attracted me to it was that there was a built in "exception to the rule" with the example of the "Civil War Saeculum".

However when I began digging into the theory I quickly found that there were some problems with the Civil War Saeculum that just didn't sit well. I mean I "got" that the Gilded were supposed to be a hybrid of Nomad/Civic. However even if that were the case why were they so god damned hubristic? If they truly were a Nomad generation first with "civic behaviors" added on top, then the Nomad personality would completely eliminate the possibility of there being any amount of Hubris. Then there were a lot of the same behaviors of Gilded and GIs in elderhood. One thing I remember very clearly from Generations is where they complete the life cycle of the living generations of 1991. They proposed that they hoped that the GIs would see in the relationship between their Boomer kids and Millennial grandkids the same kind of relationship that they had with their Missionary parents, and thus be more inclined to let go of their own "elder rights" in favor of fostering a new generation. There was also the sporting example of the bumper sticker: "We're spending our grandchildren's inheritance" that was noted as being present for both GIs and Silents. Then there were all the WWII veterans insisting that they had done their part for their country and thus deserved to have the best of everything for their "golden years" as "senior citizens". This struck me as being very similar in behavior to the old Gilded who lied and wormed their way into making themselves sound more "glorious" and "more important" in the Civil War than they actually had been, and even downright lying to get more money and prestige than they had actually earned, but that they felt that they deserved. There just felt something "right" about the association. They weren't exactly the same actions, but they both seemed to reflect a self-interested greed that both acquired in Elderhood. It manifested itself differently to be sure, but that comparison sat with me hard, and was another factor in my wanting to disassociate myself from the Civic archetype in general. You look back to the Glorious, you see the same shift in elderhood as they coalesced their Plantation riches or Mercantile business for themselves. The Republicans? They were an interesting sort in Elderhood to say the least.

It was about this time that ASB'65 began digging more into her family history and researching their friends. She expected to find Nomad attitudes and descriptions of their childhood being akin (though definitely not the same) as hers. What she found instead was a record of how "protected", "spoiled", and "fawned over" her supposedly Nomad Gilded ancestors had been as children. Granted they were on a higher income level than your average Gilded, but even amongst richer Losts & Xers in later cycles there's some semblance of the Nomad personality of feeling "lost" and uncared for (typically in the form of, "mommy and daddy buy me everything but never spends any time with me"). She began proposing that S&H got it wrong in that it wasn't that the Civics were skipped, but that the Nomads were skipped. That didn't sit well with me, given I definitely "knew" Grant was a Nomad personality, and Sherman (whom at the moment I didn't know his birth date) was as well. There was just something about Sherman's march and "total warfare" that struck me as a Nomad guy saying "Fuck this, let's get this shit done the right way for once, no more pussyfooting around. If the South wants war, I'll give them a war." It was only when I started doing some basic research that Sherman all of sudden was revealed to be inside the "Transcendental" line. That just didn't make any fucking sense to me. It absolutely didn't.

Then suddenly I started doing some basic research into other figures of that supposedly "latter-end" Transcendental generation that other "Nomad" personalities began popping up, like Lincoln and his recollection of being dragged to revivals as a child and feeling completely alien to the writhing mass that was shaking and rolling on the ground in spiritual exhalation.

Pretty soon the gig was up and the problem became evident: S&H had buried the Nomad Generation that was there--splitting them in half so as to bolster all the Transcendentals, and tacked on the smaller (but still sizable) Civic generation onto the tail-end Nomads and decided to call it a Nomad/Civic hybrid. The only reason it was a hybrid in the first place was because they'd doctored it that way. At least from my perspective, and that inspired to re-examine how the Saeculum had been BEFORE the Civil War.

Now I'm doing actual research on the subject, trying to be as impartial as I can in my examination.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This I think is due to myself, ASB'65, and another person whose screen name I can't recall at the given moment.

Personally when I'd first discovered the theory, what had originally attracted me to it was that there was a built in "exception to the rule" with the example of the "Civil War Saeculum".

However when I began digging into the theory I quickly found that there were some problems with the Civil War Saeculum that just didn't sit well. I mean I "got" that the Gilded were supposed to be a hybrid of Nomad/Civic. However even if that were the case why were they so god damned hubristic? If they truly were a Nomad generation first with "civic behaviors" added on top, then the Nomad personality would completely eliminate the possibility of there being any amount of Hubris. Then there were a lot of the same behaviors of Gilded and GIs in elderhood. One thing I remember very clearly from Generations is where they complete the life cycle of the living generations of 1991. They proposed that they hoped that the GIs would see in the relationship between their Boomer kids and Millennial grandkids the same kind of relationship that they had with their Missionary parents, and thus be more inclined to let go of their own "elder rights" in favor of fostering a new generation. There was also the sporting example of the bumper sticker: "We're spending our grandchildren's inheritance" that was noted as being present for both GIs and Silents. Then there were all the WWII veterans insisting that they had done their part for their country and thus deserved to have the best of everything for their "golden years" as "senior citizens". This struck me as being very similar in behavior to the old Gilded who lied and wormed their way into making themselves sound more "glorious" and "more important" in the Civil War than they actually had been, and even downright lying to get more money and prestige than they had actually earned, but that they felt that they deserved. There just felt something "right" about the association. They weren't exactly the same actions, but they both seemed to reflect a self-interested greed that both acquired in Elderhood. It manifested itself differently to be sure, but that comparison sat with me hard, and was another factor in my wanting to disassociate myself from the Civic archetype in general. You look back to the Glorious, you see the same shift in elderhood as they coalesced their Plantation riches or Mercantile business for themselves. The Republicans? They were an interesting sort in Elderhood to say the least.

It was about this time that ASB'65 began digging more into her family history and researching their friends. She expected to find Nomad attitudes and descriptions of their childhood being akin (though definitely not the same) as hers. What she found instead was a record of how "protected", "spoiled", and "fawned over" her supposedly Nomad Gilded ancestors had been as children. Granted they were on a higher income level than your average Gilded, but even amongst richer Losts & Xers in later cycles there's some semblance of the Nomad personality of feeling "lost" and uncared for (typically in the form of, "mommy and daddy buy me everything but never spends any time with me"). She began proposing that S&H got it wrong in that it wasn't that the Civics were skipped, but that the Nomads were skipped. That didn't sit well with me, given I definitely "knew" Grant was a Nomad personality, and Sherman (whom at the moment I didn't know his birth date) was as well. There was just something about Sherman's march and "total warfare" that struck me as a Nomad guy saying "Fuck this, let's get this shit done the right way for once, no more pussyfooting around. If the South wants war, I'll give them a war." It was only when I started doing some basic research that Sherman all of sudden was revealed to be inside the "Transcendental" line. That just didn't make any fucking sense to me. It absolutely didn't.

Then suddenly I started doing some basic research into other figures of that supposedly "latter-end" Transcendental generation that other "Nomad" personalities began popping up, like Lincoln and his recollection of being dragged to revivals as a child and feeling completely alien to the writhing mass that was shaking and rolling on the ground in spiritual exhalation.

Pretty soon the gig was up and the problem became evident: S&H had buried the Nomad Generation that was there--splitting them in half so as to bolster all the Transcendentals, and tacked on the smaller (but still sizable) Civic generation onto the tail-end Nomads and decided to call it a Nomad/Civic hybrid. The only reason it was a hybrid in the first place was because they'd doctored it that way. At least from my perspective, and that inspired to re-examine how the Saeculum had been BEFORE the Civil War.

Now I'm doing actual research on the subject, trying to be as impartial as I can in my examination.

~Chas'88

I would love it if Neil Howe himself would address this. Has he ever posted in these forums? I'm really interested to learn how S&H went about formulating this cycle. They do go into it a bit in their books, but I would love to hear a more detailed account. I remember something about them considering one really big cycle that covered 1794 - 1945 (Whiskey Rebellion to WWII), which put the Civil War right in the middle. I can't even imagine why they would consider this one cycle, but would really like to know why they justified it and later reconsidered it. Obviously they put a lot more thought and research into this theory than any of us have, so it would be nice to hear from one of the authors on this subject.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I would love it if Neil Howe himself would address this. Has he ever posted in these forums? I'm really interested to learn how S&H went about formulating this cycle. They do go into it a bit in their books, but I would love to hear a more detailed account. I remember something about them considering one really big cycle that covered 1794 - 1945 (Whiskey Rebellion to WWII), which put the Civil War right in the middle. I can't even imagine why they would consider this one cycle, but would really like to know why they justified it and later reconsidered it. Obviously they put a lot more thought and research into this theory than any of us have, so it would be nice to hear from one of the authors on this subject.

One long cycle... hmm, the best way I could guess how that would work was to assume that I'd have to have each generation be around 30 years long:

Transcendental: 1792 - 1821

Gilded: 1822 - 1851

Progressive: 1852 - 1882 (While S&H label the Progressives as what they are, they typically say the Progressive era reforms happened because what we'd call the Missionary wanted them, so to put them together isn't that big of a controversy)

Lost: 1883 - 1912 (This one makes sense as the concept of the "Interbellums" outside of this forum usually extends them to 1912/1913)

Greatest: 1913 - 1942 (This one creates the "WWII" generation)

You end up with a five generation model, if you do. But that's just me taking my "best guess".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I notice that the alternates being offered on this new thread are quite different from those offered a decade ago. Back then, the emphasis was on the turnings in the latter part of the 19th century, the civil war crisis tended to be started close to the S&H dates, usually in 1857. The major quibble then was a 4T ending date that seemed to be early. Others tended to draw it at the end of reconstruction in 1877 or with the Panic of 1873.* In this thread the emphasis seems to be on redrawing the turnings before the Civil War. Interesting, I wonder why the change? Could it be the experience of the present 4T, which seems more "Civil War like" than it would have a decade ago?

I definitely think that's the case. The original thread by DaveGarber75 (posted september 2008) (http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...n-to-Civil-War) was the first one I saw to propose the 1850 start date. It's interesting that this model started getting serious thought after our soon after the catalyst that started our current crisis. The mood we're in now seems similar to the one the 1850s. We all feel like we're in a crisis, yet we can't agree on a course of action, and we're still kicking the problem down the road. It's the sort of crisis that has a late regeneracy, like the Civil War Crisis.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I notice that the alternates being offered on this new thread are quite different from those offered a decade ago. Back then, the emphasis was on the turnings in the latter part of the 19th century, the civil war crisis tended to be started close to the S&H dates, usually in 1857. The major quibble then was a 4T ending date that seemed to be early. Others tended to draw it at the end of reconstruction in 1877 or with the Panic of 1873.* In this thread the emphasis seems to be on redrawing the turnings before the Civil War. Interesting, I wonder why the change? Could it be the experience of the present 4T, which seems more "Civil War like" than it would have a decade ago?

I myself thought it made sense for a while to think of 1860-1877 as a 4T, but the problem I ran into was the 1T immediately afterwards. Everyone seems to universally agree that the Haymarket Riots of 1886 is a good starting point for the 2T, but if we still maintain that start date for the 2T, then that means we only had a 9 year long 1T, which obviously isn't right. If I could figure out how to reconcile the start and end dates for the turnings in the saeculum following the Civil War (especially the first two), then maybe I would reconsider the notion of the Civil War and Reconstruction being a 4T era, and not the 1850s.

That being said, I personally am most comfortable with a 4T end date of 1870, since that's when the last southern state was brought back into the Union. And I start the 4T with the Compromise of 1850, so for me, I would go with a 4T of 1850-1870, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. It's just that for me at the moment, that's what makes the most sense.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

It's interesting that this model started getting serious thought after our soon after the catalyst that started our current crisis. The mood we're in now seems similar to the one the 1850s. We all feel like we're in a crisis, yet we can't agree on a course of action, and we're still kicking the problem down the road. It's the sort of crisis that has a late regeneracy, like the Civil War Crisis.

Perhaps a possible explanation can be found in the atonement/advancement cycle that it seems that prophet generations go through. In the 1850s the Transcendentals were quite divided, as the Boomers are today. Both Boomers and Transcendentals are also thought to be atonement prophet generations.

Whereas the Awakening and Missionary generations were advancement generations, the former emphasizing Reason and the Enlightenment, the latter greater equality and equity in society.

Originally Posted by Normal

I myself thought it made sense for a while to think of 1860-1877 as a 4T, but the problem I ran into was the 1T immediately afterwards. Everyone seems to universally agree that the Haymarket Riots of 1886 is a good starting point for the 2T, but if we still maintain that start date for the 2T, then that means we only had a 9 year long 1T, which obviously isn't right. If I could figure out how to reconcile the start and end dates for the turnings in the saeculum following the Civil War (especially the first two), then maybe I would reconsider the notion of the Civil War and Reconstruction being a 4T era, and not the 1850s.

That being said, I personally am most comfortable with a 4T end date of 1870, since that's when the last southern state was brought back into the Union. And I start the 4T with the Compromise of 1850, so for me, I would go with a 4T of 1850-1870, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. It's just that for me at the moment, that's what makes the most sense.

I'm not yet ready to abandon my original model, but I'm willing to explore other possibilities. There's a strong case for starting the 3T at 1837, but this makes the 3T very short if you end it at 1850.

Another possible start date for the 4T is the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This was the act that led to the creation of the Republican Party in opposition, as well as the introduction of popular sovereignty in the new territories. Abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates rushed into these knew territories before the votes took place, and there was often violence between the two sides. This might work better as a starting point for the 4T not only because it lengthens the abbreviated 3T, but also because the compromise of 1850 felt like a victory at first, since it prevented a war. Of course, this was not the case, and the fugitive slave act only exacerbated the tension. But maybe the crisis mood didn't fully sink in until 1854 when it started to become very difficult for parties to keep the middle ground. The Whig party split up, and the Republican and Know Nothing parties emerged from its ashes.

In fact, we might be seeing such a thing happening to the Republican Party today. Like the Whig party, it's the more conservative of the two parties, and it too is being split into a more libertarian tea party wing, and the more traditional religious right wing. There's a possibility that the party will split up if it keeps losing ground in future elections. It's possible, though admittedly doesn't seem very likely right now, that the more libertarian faction will find common ground with the occupy movement and a party will be formed much like the Republicans formed from anti-slavery former whigs and free soilers.

Originally Posted by Normal

Everyone seems to universally agree that the Haymarket Riots of 1886 is a good starting point for the 2T

There's no empirical support from the events record for this, the data suggests a later start. I always thought this date was based on the Idealist gen born from 1860-82 (this I think was strongly affected by the biographies of women). But then this leaves insufficent room for three generations between the Transcendentals and the Missionaries, hence the need to drop one. I suspect that S&H found more evidence for Nomads and Artists and less for Heroes in the intervening period.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Another possible start date for the 4T is the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This was the act that led to the creation of the Republican Party in opposition, as well as the introduction of popular sovereignty in the new territories. Abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates rushed into these new territories before the votes took place, and there was often violence between the two sides. This might work better as a starting point for the 4T not only because it lengthens the abbreviated 3T, but also because the compromise of 1850 felt like a victory at first, since it prevented a war.

We don't usually consider most of the slide into rebellion from 1765-1775 as part of a 4T, but we are proposing to do just that with the 1852-1861 slide into civil war. The reason why is the 18th century 4T is long enough without having to make this addition while the 19th century 4T is not. I don't think trying to make the lengths work out is a valid reason.

The reason why S&H chose the bloodless Tea Party and not the Boston Massacre as their 4T start point was because it was only then that the British lost their patience and got tough, forcing the issue. Now when did the same thing happen for the Civil War. Certainly not in 1850, when the Compromise seems to calm the situation down. But then this was under a Whig administration. What happened after Democrats came to power in 1852? Well shenanigans for one. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a classic dodge on the issue, let "popular sovereignty" decide the issue. The casualties that resulted from Bleeding Kansas domestic violence were of a similar magnitude to those from domestic terrorism in the 1990's or the New Era 3T (1,2). I don't think violence by itself, even on a 911 scale, is enough to claim a 4T trigger.

Then there is the 1856 election. The party that represented the faction with the advantage in the correlation of forces (and who would eventually win the war) LOST the election. Instead they elected Buchanan as an "old hand" who would be able to keep things together. Clearly as late as 1856 there was no sense of an inevitability of war, the spiral (as Bob Butler would put it) had not yet reached its 1773 point. The came Dred Scott, and the situation became untenable, but violence did not break out, exactly when it would was still undecided. Americans still decided to rely on the ballot box. As the 1860 election progressed sentiment in parts of the South moved in favor of open rebellion if Lincoln should win. And when he did, war became inevitable. It seems clear to me that 1860 was the 1773 point in the Civil War spiral.