“E Pluribus Unum,” Latin for “Out of many, one,” appears on the Great Seal of the United States and coins. Its roots lie in Virgil’s poem Moretum, but in America, it symbolized political unity among the thirteen states during the Revolutionary era, not diversity as the left and PragerU claim.
The phrase entered American use in the Great Seal’s design process. On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to create a seal. They consulted artist Pierre Eugene du Simitière, who suggested “E Pluribus Unum” as a motto contained in the seal. The committee’s August 20, 1776 report noted simply: “Motto e pluribus unum.” No explicit explanation accompanied it.
It appears that Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams left no direct quotes on the motto. Franklin proposed a seal with Moses parting the Red Sea and the motto “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” Adams described the design in an August 14, 1776 letter to Abigail, focusing on other symbols but omitting the motto. Jefferson prioritized motifs like the pillars of Hercules.
The clearest primary source explanation of the motto comes from Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress. In his June 20, 1782, report to Congress, he explained the obverse of the seal: “The Escutcheon is composed of the chief & pale, the two most honorable ordinaries. The Pieces, paly, represent the several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union.” He added: “The pales in the arms are kept closely united by the chief and the Chief depends upon that union & the strength resulting from it for its support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America & the preservation of their union through Congress.”
Thomson’s words tie the motto strictly to the states’ political union under confederation. The “many” refers to the states; the “one” to their compact. No mention appears of people, cultures, or diversity.
This fits the 18th-century context. The Articles of Confederation (1781) stressed a “firm league of friendship” among sovereign states. Franklin’s quip of the time, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”, captured the practical need for unity against division.
Modern interpretations often view “E Pluribus Unum” as celebrating diversity, with immigrants blending into one nation. This emerged in the late 19th and 20th centuries during heavy immigration. Israel Zangwill’s 1908 play The Melting Pot popularized cultural assimilation. Today, rhetoric highlights “diversity as strength,” extending the motto to racial, ethnic, and ideological pluralism.
The fact is that the diversity angle is ahistorical and nonsensical. Again, Thomson’s exact phrasing was, “The Motto alludes to this union” which refers only to the states’ confederacy.
History shows that “E Pluribus Unum” meant a union of thirteen independent states for strength and survival. Thomson’s report offers the definitive 18th-century view. The modern diversity focus is a propaganda tool for the big central government politicians and globalists to strengthen allegiance to the center. This erodes freedom and further lulls a compliant and ignorant populace into feeling good about the corrupt center. Most damaging, it is a further departure from the founders’ federalism.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.
OH MY! The Founders referred to the original states as a “Confederacy”?! Zounds and sacre bleu!! The Yanks and lefties are going to lose their minds — not that they haven’t already. The 1619 agitators will say it’s proof of systemic racism, blah, blah because ‘everyone knows’ that anything Confederate is proof of racism. Enjoy squaring this circle Yanks. I look forward to hearing your far out rationalizations.
Yes, a confederacy, as in a CONFEDERATION… as in Articles of Confederation.
And each state unilaterally SECEDED from that Confederation starting in 1787, to form another union under the Constitution instead… each doing so by its power as a fully sovereign state.
Exactly. If only the Yanks who are obsessed with the ‘Civil War’ would come to understand that.
Just wait 5 months from now on July 4th 2026 (and the build-up to it), You will hear the worst of the worst from the “conservative” websites to Fox News to the Republican party et al . They will be praising our “nation,” born on this date; and they will compare anything called “confederacy” to Communism and their fellow travelers, the slave states (misguided but corrected of course!).
E Pluribus Unum will be quoted as if Jesus Christ included it in The Sermon on the Mount.
Just wait and see. These “conservatives? Are as bad as the people they curse daily in Minneapolis.
Agreed!
I doubt we will hear anyone on July 4, 2026 say “these united States.
It is these ” conservatives” who stupidly compare anti-ice fighters to the confederates of the 1860’s and those who resisted civil rights of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Speaking of, what DID the “civil rights movement” accomplish besides using the federal government to bash their opponents into submission? Did they change anyone’s mind?
Thanks for the good history. That E Pluribus Unum originated from a consulted artist near the beginning of the Revolution (1776) when they very much needed the confederation to stick together for survival.
Great piece, Mr. Sapp,
Original Intent must be examined and used to defend all of our sacred political objects against subversion. You’ve done it.
This makes sense to this Northerner. I don’t consider myself a “Yankee”. It’s hard to believe, New York State where I live was one of the original 13!
New Yorkers were not the original Yankees. The original Yankees ( Jan Kees,Dutch for “John Cheese” ) An insult by the Dutch for New Englanders , who, in my opinion deserved to be insulted. When this crowd of self-righteous puritanical beasts began spreading southward they began spreading their name.
Look, it is simple.
From The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783….
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
That only means that the states were 13 fully sovereign nations. It cannot possibly mean anything else.
E pluribus Unum, refers to an INTERNATIONAL union.
Not national.
Where did Steven the 12th generation New Englander’s comment go? I liked it. He said that secession would receive a whole lot of support among New Englanders right now, today. That is a paraphrase, but accurate. Unfortunately, he seemed to be encouraging only us Rebs to secede and said “please, please don’t miss this opportunity” His post to my mind confirmed what we Rebs all feel, that Yanks, especially New England Yanks, really, really, .. really dislike us. If they dislike us so much I can’t help but wonder, why don’t THEY secede?! Clearly, we would not try and stop THEM. I could suggest many plausible courses of action and where Stevem’s comment went, but will restrain myself. I will suggest one: Ottawa would welcome y’all and since you are of like mind it would be a win-win … politically at least, not economically. Let us hear from you Steven and get rolling on that New England secession initiative, please.
In Chicago, the language is always about “melting pot”. Which means all of the distinctiveness that the long march of human Liberty sponsors, vanishes, and after have been smelted down – we all appear as one manageable and controllable mass. As far back as 1688 when William and Mary were installed, the cry from the colonies was “grant us all the Freedoms Englishmen enjoy and we will live in the most friendly relations with you” (paraphrase).
We seceded from Great Britain because they refused to treat us as anything other than a lower class to be exploited. ” Deplorable” what how Banastre Tarleton portrayed our way of life, in my neighbor hood in the Virginia (from his memoir some years later).
But there was another far more powerful and less directly visible phenomenon in place when we broke ties. Happiness, which was the English word used to best portray an INTRINSIC sense of self worth – derived predominately from self sufficiency and being able to live without fear. Our Confederacy, was a lived experience for Native peoples who were influential when America was borne – if for the only fact that they represented the balance of power, militarily, even culturally. You never see Indians today – because they are eminently conservative
The influence of enslaved Native people, enslaved African people in my mind can’t be overstated – influence upon the minds of my ancestors – even if it only extended to the subconscious sphere. and context. I have Puritan ancestors from Virginia – the Burwell family. We got along so well we intermarried much. The Burwells (pronounced “Burl”) were astounding Patriots giving everything to the cause, dying destitute while manumitting all their “bonds”. How could Puritans, in the South – be so different from those in the North. I got a hunch. Which is why I say the worst thing that could have ever happened was for the Mayflower to become hopelessly lost at sea and miss landing in Virginia