The motto “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) was one that, at times, did and did not accurately describe the history of the United States from July 2, 1776 through the ratification of the United States constitution.  The U.S. motto can be applied to both the American people and their States. 

            The Continental Army fills both sides of the ledger.  After the fire of the “rage militaire” of 1775 was extinguished, the Continental Army after 1776, no longer receiving any reliable or valuable support from militias or the “patriots” (citizen soldier), was filled by the poorest and most desperate of all the people in the colonies.  The enlisted men were destitute, landless, single, indentured servants, slaves, vagrants, criminals, foreigners (Hessians and captured British soldiers), and coerced loyalists—the antithesis of republican idealism.  In direct opposition to the lowest of the low enlistees was the officer corps.  The officers were the wealthy, married, propertied, respectable men of society.  The two very different groups that comprised the army would sometimes come together as one to accomplish great feats on the battlefield, and sometimes there would be a distance between them that was unreachable. 

            The Continental Army (enlisted men and officers), felt the backlash from the patriots republican view on the war.  The patriots believed the militias with their citizen soldiers were all that was needed to win the war against the British Army, and they viewed the Continental Army as mercenaries bought with promises of freedom, land, and enlistment bonuses.  As a result of this view, Americans failed to support the army with the supplies and necessities needed to wage an effective war.  The Continental Congress did not effectively supply the army with pay, food, uniforms, socks, shoes, blankets, and bullets—all the necessities to fight and win a war.  The individual citizens of America refused to do their part to help the army.  There were countless accounts of farmers refusing to sell to Washington’s army because they thought they could get a better price from the British and French armies, which paid in specie versus Washington’s Continental dollars or IOU’s.  As a result of the Pennsylvania farmers hording their goods or sending them down river to achieve better prices, 2500 soldiers needlessly starved and died of exposure at Valley Forge; in fact the Continental Army and America’s quest for independence and sovereignty nearly died with these soldiers due to the unpatriotic and most un-republican of actions by those who claimed to be the firmest of patriots.  The U.S. motto definitely did not fit the actions of the Congress or the citizens regarding their treatment of the Continental Army. 

            As a result of this treatment, the enlisted men and the officers formed separate mini-revolts.  The Pennsylvania and New Jersey revolts of 1781 are examples of the enlisted men’s revolts.  The Pennsylvania line marched to Philadelphia, killed officers, and took control of the artillery before achieving their goals of getting re-enlistment bonuses.  The New Jersey line revolt did not go as well.  They received promises and then Washington had the ringleaders executed.  The officers attempted to obtain their own goals with the Newburg revolt in 1783.  Fearing being forgotten and disbanded after Yorktown when the war was essentially over, the army officers sought commutations and united with Robert Morris and the Nationalists who wanted to empower the national government with the ability to tax.  The nationalists used the officers and the army as a threat to the Continental Congress; they hoped that they would be fearful enough to strengthen the Articles of Confederation into giving the national government more power.  The mere fact that the enlisted men and the officers felt the need to revolt shows the amount of discord between the Congress and the army.  The fact that no one stood up for the enlisted men or the officers, other than the nationalists who used them, is proof that the U.S. motto, once again, did not apply.

The enlisted soldiers of the Continental Army, comprised of varying peoples, did come to fit the motto.  Perhaps it was due to their country’s abandonment of them, but the enlisted men who survived Valley Forge came together as one under the training of Baron Von Steuben and the steady leadership of George Washington to defeat a vastly superior British Army (in terms of numbers, experience, and training).  Because the army formed into a cohesive and disciplined band of brothers from its beginnings as a hodgepodge group of different individuals, they definitely fulfill the U.S. motto of E Pluribus Unum.

One would think the victorious Continental Army would have been venerated after the war was over, and their accomplishments universally recognized—one would be wrong.  In newspapers and public opinion the soldiers who served were not honored.  Instead, their accomplishments and reasons for serving were denigrated.  Those “patriots” who did not serve attempted to rewrite the story of the war.  They said it was the republican, civilian soldier that defeated the British, and the Continental Army was unnecessary.  They claimed the only reason the officers joined was because of a lack of economic prospects.  The officers were told they joined for a job, clothing, and money.  There were allusions to officers growing fat from the war when they had entered skinny.  The truth was that the officers were wealthy before the war began and suffered economically due to remaining in the army.  They resented civilians who profited, and lived in “Roman” style luxury and expected them to survive on nothing like “Spartans”.  The officers complained, and tried to keep the true story alive via the hereditary Society of Cincinnati, which was deemed aristocratic by detractors.  The enlisted men did nothing to counteract the lie that it was middle class, property owning republicans who won the war.  White soldiers ended up receiving nothing as a result of their efforts in the war.  Only slaves and indentured servants saw an improvement to their lives—freedom.  Yet again, another blown chance to unite as one people and fulfill the U.S. motto.

Economic divisions, especially between creditors and debtors, engendered conflict.  After 1776, farmers that grew corn and wheat, saw an economic boom due to the British and French armies vying for their goods and their capability to pay in specie.  With more demand than supply, the prices for the farmer’s goods skyrocketed.  Some greedy farmers refused to sell their foodstuffs to the Continental Army because they would be paid with I.O.U.s that may or may not have been worth something in the future.  Hording occurred as some farmers waited for higher and higher prices.  In 1779 Pennsylvania, runaway inflation had led to prices rising 45% in one month.  Corn prices rose over 1000% due to the aforementioned farmers actions.  By the end of 1779, prices on rum, tea, molasses, wheat, flour, and corn were seven times more than what they were in 1776.  These price rises would lead to civil unrest and economic controls in Pennsylvania.  There were many complaints from the citizens in the cities who had to buy these inflated goods.  In 1779, over 100 sailors hit the streets with clubs and weapons seeking a pay rise to meet inflation.  The Philadelphia militia marched to the Pennsylvania legislature where they ominously said, “we wait for your interference on our behalf.”  The Constitutional party responded with committees to inspect merchants and enforce price controls.  They prohibited the exportation of goods for higher prices and gave food to the poor.  The farmers stopped shipping food to Philadelphia to get around price controls; instead they sent it down the Susquehanna and made good profits at the expense of their fellow Pennsylvanians.  The price controls led to the forming of factions over differing economic theories—public interest versus free markets.  October 4, 1779 the Philadelphia militia marched to James Wilson’s house because he was anti-price control.  The militia surrounded his house and shots were fired.  The civil light horse brigade, led by the opposition party leaders Timothy Matlack and Joseph Reed, broke up the riot.  The people believed this was evidence that the leadership of the Constitutional party was against the common man and the party disbanded.  The farmers acted in their own best interests by hording food and refusing to sell to Washington’s army, which led to runaway inflation and riots against the State government and party leaders.  This period in Pennsylvania history definitely does not fit the U.S. motto.

After the war was over, there was an attempt by wealthy lawyers, merchants, brokers, and politicians to see that the war debt certificates were paid.  In Pennsylvania in 1782, 434 men owned 96 % of the debt and 285 of those men owned 40% of the public debt—they were debt speculators.  These speculators wanted to be paid in specie.  Robert Morris tried to get the farmers to pay higher taxes in specie so that he could pay the debt holders.  He shrank the money supply, which caused many farmers to be unable to pay their taxes.  They did not have specie to pay the taxes anyway, and their farms, in epidemic proportions, were foreclosed on.  The state leaders avoided printing money so as to not devalue what was already in existence.  When they did print new money, as they did in 1785 when the Constitutionalist faction pushed for an emission of $400,000 in paper money, two-thirds of the money went directly to certificate holders as their yearly interest payment.  The other third was parceled out among 15 counties where it was not enough to even scratch the surface of unpaid debts and taxes.  The same economic situation was occurring in Massachusetts.  Farmers were being taxed to pay the war debt, but they did not have the money to pay, which caused their farms to be foreclosed on.  In 1787, Daniel Shays led a farmer’s revolt against high taxes and a lack of money.  They seized an armory and believed the militia would be friendly to them.  The militia was not, and many were killed.  This event would lead George Washington and others to see the desperate need for a strong national government that could raise an army to put down rebellions.  The farmers, formerly the gougers, were now the ones suffering at the hands of those seeking to profit from the war.  Because it was politicians and others with influence that used the state government as agents against the common man for profit, this period does not fit the U.S. motto. 

It was not always creditors that sought governmental power to obtain redress from debtors.  The debtors used the state legislature of Rhode Island to their advantage over creditors.  The legislature was comprised of farmers who held debt.  They printed paper money so they could pay their debts, and when the creditors refused to accept it (fearing depreciation), the legislature made it legal tender.  Creditors fled the state, and the legislature said all debts could be paid into an account, which would satisfy the debt.  The creditor could claim his money whenever he wished.  When judges refused to enforce these laws, the legislature had them removed and replaced with ones who were sympathetic to them.  The actions by the debtor farmers in the legislature against their creditors were as bad as what occurred in Pennsylvania.  In both cases, the government was wielded as a tool of oppression against a segment of the population—quite against the U.S. motto.  Out of this situation, would come the belief by Madison that the national government needed to have supreme power over unjust and abusive state legislatures.  The Constitution would give laws passed by Congress primacy over any passed by state legislatures.  Judicial review would be one of the results of the mischief enacted by the Rhode Island legislature. 

From 1776 through the ratification of the Constitution, there was a power struggle between the national and state governments over who would pay the national debt.  The struggle was between nationalists who wanted a stronger National government and states rights advocates who wanted more power in the state than in the national government.  The battle between the two to accumulate and pay the debt was for the sole purpose of taxation.  For the states, the ability to tax meant the power to fund militias, and keep the national government subservient to their wishes.  For the nationalists, the power to tax meant the ability to raise an army, to establish good credit and obtain loans, and to make the states subservient to national interests.  This period does not fit the motto “From the many, one” because the states were acting as individuals resisting becoming molded into one large and subservient entity to a greater being—the national government.

At the Constitutional Convention, the states first aligned themselves for battle as the big versus the small.  The states fought over proportional representation—the big states (VA. MA. and PA.) were for it and the small states against it, except for those small states (GA., S.C., and N.C.) that thought they would become large.  The big state side planned on pushing the Virginia plan through the convention, but Georgia sided with the small states, which then formed the alliances into the North versus the South.  The division between North and South was a large one.  The Continental Congress, controlled by the North at the time, had tried to trade the navigation rights to the Mississippi to Spain for trading privileges that were more in their own merchant interests.  The greatest interests between the two sides were representation in Congress and slavery.  With the overriding goal being to make the Constitutional Convention work, compromises were achieved in which both sides gave up some of what they wanted.  The North got popular representation in the lower house but the South got equal representation in the upper house.  The Northern territories would be made into no more than five states and would have no slavery, while the South was able to count its slaves for representation but at the discounted rate of 3/5.  The slave trade was extended until 1808 rather than 1800, and the fugitive slave clause was agreed on.  Even though the states at the Constitutional Convention arrived with varying demands, they were able to compromise and coalesce into one out of many, thereby forming the greatest example of the U.S. motto E Pluribus Unum.

Just as the states came into the Constitutional Convention divided, so to were the factions that arose to support and oppose it during ratification.  The factions were the federalists and the anti-federalists representing commercialism and anti-commercialism proponents.  Unlike Madison, who thought the vote would be a class based one pitting the rich versus the poor, it turned out that Alexander Hamilton’s prediction was the correct one.  He believed the vote would be between merchants and those with “landed” interests.  The vote did turn out this way.  Cities overwhelmingly voted for the ratification because that is where the commerce was.  Those living along the seacoast or near rivers voted for it because these areas thrived on trade.  The poorer artisans, tanners, and laborers joined the rich merchants because their wages depended on the merchants.  They were united by a common commerce goal or interest.  Land interests united those who did not vote for ratification.  They were the wealthy people who owned land and were speculators; they were joined by the poor, small farmers and tended to not live close to rivers or oceans where trade occurred.  Those living in Western Pennsylvania and Georgia voted for ratification because they needed the national government’s military protection against Indians, and foreign nation threats.  Once again, the vote over ratification descended to economic self-interests, which divided the nation in two.  The U.S. motto does not fit this event.

One idea that sought to enlist a greater good for all was Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.  This was the founding tract of capitalism.  He said the measure of a nation is calculated by how many people are in poverty.  He believed that all people should be lifted out of poverty because poverty crushes the spirit through begging and humiliation.  His means of achieving this greater happiness was by producing more at less cost through greater efficiency, which was achieved by the division of labor.  Smith believed that economic liberalism could lead to the more republican ideal of liberty.  He thought the republican virtue of frugality did not lead to liberty for all, but rather only for those at the top.  Basically it was a pyramid scheme where the small group at the top is wealthy, free and had liberty, which was supported by many (slaves and the poor) at the bottom.  Even though Smith was not American, his economic theory did take hold in America—minus the part about lifting the poor out of poverty and ending slavery.  Smith’s theory encompassed the U.S. motto of uniting everyone into one, and for this I say the idea fit the motto, but its total implementation failed in America—slaves and poor. 

Conversely to Smith’s idea on slaves was that of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson’s views of blacks led him to the belief in the idea of polygenesis—humans are derived from different species, are created differently, and never have or will change.  Whites are at the top as the creator intended it to be.  Jefferson tried to justify his beliefs through tests and reasoning.  He was a very conflicted man over slavery.  His views helped perpetuate the idea of black inferiority, and with it the justification for slavery, which he said was “unjustifiably wrong”.  Jefferson’s idea of polygenesis and his conflicting actions regarding slaves is the polar opposite of the U.S. motto.  His views sought to forever separate the people of America—his motto would have been “from many to more”.

Judging the accuracy of the U.S. motto from 1776 through ratification is quite easy—it overwhelmingly missed the mark.  Based on the treatment of the Continental Army by the farmers and Congress, the state legislatures using their power against the small farmers for profit seeking motives, the state alliances formed and broken at the Constitutional Convention, and factions that voted to ratify the Constitution based on individual economic circumstances all make the argument that the motto did not fit these years.  On the other side, there were the individuals who formed the Continental Army.  These guys, from different backgrounds, races, and nationalities all came together, in spite of the disgust heaped on them by the so-called “patriots,” to win a war they had no business winning.  Adam Smith’s economic ideas about capitalism and raising the poor and the slave out of poverty fit the motto.  The coming together through compromise at the Constitutional Convention to create a document that involved the common people (except for women, slaves and Indians) in the direct election of their leaders, and created a merit-based system instead of an aristocratic hereditary one fulfills the U.S. motto.  Overall, there were far more instances where individuals and states acted in their best interests against others than there were for those who sought to unite into one people (Americans) and one nation—the United States of America.