NEW YORK (AP) — As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the national motto E Pluribus Unum reveals a persistent challenge to governance: balancing individual liberty with collective cohesion in a nation founded on principles rather than lineage. The Associated Press examination shows how the aspiration for unity embedded in founding documents has produced both remarkable achievements and significant failures, with implications for institutional stability and the limits of federal authority.
The motto, meaning "out of many, one," appears on currency and reflects ideals found throughout founding texts—from the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "All men are created equal" to the Constitution's opening "We the people" and the country's very name, the UNITED States of America. Yet the article demonstrates how these aspirations have clashed with practical governance questions about who participates in the political and economic system.
The Founders' Framework
The founders emphasized unity from the beginning, establishing government based on "the consent of the governed" rather than monarchy. George Washington, stepping down after two terms, warned citizens to "properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness" and to cherish "a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it … indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest."
Yet the fabric stitched together from 13 original colonies left unity's meaning unsettled. The founders articulated high-minded ideals while simultaneously placing limits on who could participate, who possessed rights and freedom, and who did not. Daniel Immerwahr, a professor of history at Northwestern University, notes: "I think the United State has had a more volatile history in terms of how it deals with questions of inclusion and exclusion, how it draws the line and polices the line of who's in and who's out." He adds that "what's interesting about the United States in this regard is how changeable and nonobvious some of the answers to those questions are."
Geographic and Economic Divides
Differences in the United States have been geographic—rural versus urban, plains versus mountains—and climatic, including heat versus snow and wildfires versus flooding. Cultural differences have included people from different countries of origin, newcomers versus generations deep, different languages, and followers of different Christian denominations or other religions entirely. Rich and poor have always lived differently.
Some differences constituted travesties. Enslaved Africans and their American-born descendants were forced to work under the lash for white owners' benefit, and even after slavery was outlawed they faced discrimination and worse under racism legalized in systemic ways into the 20th century, with echoes persisting. Indigenous tribes saw populations decimated by death and disease as the American experiment moved westward, and their cultures were stripped from generations as the federal government attempted to force "unity" through brutal assimilation efforts. Communities were barred from opportunity because of gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics.
The Constitutional Correction
The United States experienced tensions between unity and autonomy in its infancy. The Constitution represents the second attempt at a governmental framework. The first, the Articles of Confederation, kept the federal government weaker and individual states stronger. It quickly became clear that having such a weak central government—less unity—was not effective for the new country, leading to the Constitution.
For European countries, negotiations over unity occurred under centuries of established history, geography and existing government forms. The United States was, from the founders' perspective, a new entity. Immerwahr observes: "What it is to be of the United States is to adhere to a set of principles rather than to have a certain kind of lineage." He adds: "Sometimes that makes the United States remarkably open, and then sometimes that gets the leaders of the United States in all kinds of weird contradictions as they try to explain why they're doing some forms of inclusion and not others."
Historical Fluctuations
Persistent efforts across eras sought to create a country where opportunities available to some—voting, economic growth, or access to education—would be available to all. This came gradually through protest movements, legal action, and callbacks to founding ideals. Eileen Cheng, a professor of history at Sarah Lawrence College, says these ideals "provided a language for the groups that were challenging these exclusions to draw on … invoking the ideals of the Revolution and the Declaration and saying, 'Look, this is what the nation is supposed to be about.'" She adds, "They could challenge the system and yet claim that they were being the true Americans."
The United States has a decidedly mixed history in dealing with these tensions, and things have fluctuated. Migration patterns illustrate this: eras when influx seemed never-ending alternated with times when much of the world was barred. In politics, the idea of different factions represented by different parties was loathed by some even as it became embedded in political culture. Groups once looked down upon were later brought into the fold, and vice versa.
Paul Wachtel, a psychology professor at the City College of New York, observes: "There are always tensions between the unity and the separateness," and "There's no society that is just one or just the other … what's really most essential is that we learn how to negotiate those tensions."
Contemporary Questions
The meaning of unity remains abstract. What does it mean for a country to be united? Does unity mean uniform? Can people be on "different sides that happen to be side by side"? Is unity even beneficial in a raucous democracy? There is no single answer around the globe or in history. Some countries have single official languages, others have multiple, and some, like the United States, have never officially designated any for generations. Some countries have chosen official religions, and nations have different standards and processes for naturalizing new citizens.
Cindy Kam, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, says: "What have we learned over the last 250 years is that things change." She adds: "We are inclined to be social animals, but what those groups are is culturally constructed. So political elites, social elites, cultural elites, they do that work in identifying what the groups are, who is part of 'us' and who is a part of the 'other.'"
The question is not settled. Demographic, technological, economic and other changes of recent decades are making discussions about unity more relevant than ever. Americans have recently lived in a country where polarization is rampant and serious, sometimes dire, questions abound over what the future holds. This is probably more in line with the country's beginnings than people realize. Cheng says: "This polarization, people talk about it like it's a new thing. But I think it's really a return back to the way that we were at the beginning of the country." She adds: "It's not like this kind of linear development where we're growing more and more accepting of difference. I think it's up and down."
Why This Matters:
The examination of America's founding motto at the 250-year mark highlights enduring questions about the proper balance between federal authority and individual liberty, between collective identity and diverse communities. The founders' recognition that weak central government proved ineffective—prompting replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution—demonstrates that governance requires institutional strength, yet their simultaneous emphasis on consent of the governed and adherence to principles rather than lineage established inherent tensions. As demographic and economic changes accelerate, understanding that polarization and debates over inclusion have characterized American governance from the beginning provides perspective on current institutional challenges. The historical pattern of fluctuation in openness and restriction suggests that maintaining stable governance frameworks while negotiating competing claims requires constant attention to constitutional principles and recognition that unity based on shared ideals, rather than uniformity, has proven both the nation's greatest strength and most persistent challenge.