An Associated Press feature examining the United States at age 250 reports that the national motto, E Pluribus Unum, or “out of many, one,” reflects an American aspiration for unity that has been both optimistic and unrealistic. The article notes that the United States has never been just one America, where everyone lived in the same way or had the same access to power and prosperity, and that rich and poor have always lived differently.
From the nation’s beginning, the founders emphasized unity, with government based on “the consent of the governed” rather than monarchy. However, these founders spoke of high-minded ideals while simultaneously putting limits on who could take part, who had rights and freedom, and who did not.
This foundational contradiction is evident in the history of enslaved Africans and their American-born descendants, who were forced to live under the lash and work in fields and elsewhere for the benefit of white owners. Even after slavery was outlawed, these populations were subjected to discrimination and worse under racism legalized in systemic ways into the 20th century, with echoes persisting today.
Indigenous tribes also faced decimation of their populations by death and disease as the American experiment moved westward, with newly arrived settlers seeking their tribal lands. The U.S. government attempted to force “unity” through brutal efforts at assimilation, stripping cultures from generations.
Founding Contradictions
Daniel Immerwahr, a professor of history at Northwestern University, states that the United States has had a more volatile history in dealing with questions of inclusion and exclusion, and how it draws and polices the line of who is in and who is out. He notes that the answers to these questions have been changeable and nonobvious.
Differences in the United States have been geographic, including rural versus urban and plains versus mountains, and climatic, such as heat versus snow and wildfires versus flooding. Cultural differences have also persisted, involving people from various countries of origin, newcomers versus generations deep, different languages, and diverse religious denominations.
Communities of people were barred from possibility because of gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics, further fragmenting any notion of universal unity. The article highlights that the meaning of unity remains abstract, questioning whether it implies uniformity or if people can exist on “different sides that happen to be side by side.”
The State's Role in Division
Cindy Kam, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, observes that political elites, social elites, and cultural elites actively work to identify what the groups are, defining who is part of “us” and who is part of the “other.” This process shapes the cultural construction of social divisions.
The Constitution, the second attempt at a framework for government, replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had kept the federal government weaker and individual states stronger. The shift to the Constitution demonstrated that a weak central government, implying less unity, was deemed ineffective for the new country, leading to a stronger state apparatus.
George Washington, in his farewell address, emphasized the “immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness,” urging citizens to “cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it” and to frown upon attempts to alienate any portion of the country.
Struggles Against Exclusion
Despite these systemic divisions, persistent efforts across eras have aimed to create a country where opportunities available to some, such as voting, economic growth, or access to education, would be made available to all. These gains came gradually through protest movements and legal action.
Eileen Cheng, a professor of history at Sarah Lawrence College, notes that these movements invoked the ideals of the Revolution and the Declaration, providing a language for groups challenging exclusions to claim they were being the true Americans. This approach allowed challenges to the system while operating within its established ideological framework.
The United States has experienced a mixed history in dealing with these tensions, with conditions fluctuating over time. Migration patterns have seen eras of continuous influx and times when much of the world was barred. The article concludes that current rampant polarization is likely more in line with the country’s beginnings than many realize, representing a return to historical patterns rather than a new phenomenon.