Merlyn C. Faris III
July 4th, 1776, the Continental Congress accepted the document created by the “Committee of 5” as the official document to declare to the world America’s independence. Shortly after this monumental event a motion was made to create an official seal and motto for this new “United States of America.” The Continental Congress created a committee and selected three intellectual giants for this task. Three men that had just created The Declaration of Independence, officially giving birth to the United States of America, were now tasked with creating an official motto and seal for these United States. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would go on to work, for the next seven weeks, on this very task.
On August 20th, the committee delivered their proposal. The proposed seal was complex, too complex for the liking of the rest of the delegation and ended up being tabled. The motion for a seal and motto was readdressed by Congress over the following few years. They appointed a second and third committee to create a version only to table the proposed renderings again. In 1782, a fourth committee was selected. This committee’s proposal was the one that was accepted as the Great Seal and, in form, what we still see today as the seal. To create the seal, they looked back to the previous proposals and used components from each: a scroll, arrows, stars, a shield, and an olive branch. To complete the seal a motto had to be created, and the committee looked back for aid with that as well. Back to the initial proposal they went for a statement so simple and yet so completely profound: E Pluribus Unum.
Enlightened thinkers and impressionist art
E pluribus unum: out of many one. I’m sure we’ve all seen it and heard it before. To look at it is like looking at a painting by Monet. The subject matter seems basic and obvious, almost dull. It is when you look deeper, when you see the specific brush strokes, layers and angles of shadow and light that only make sense when you understand the processes taken to create the masterpiece. It’s when we grasp the layers that we realize the phrase probably means more than our social studies teacher told us and more than the money it’s printed on. The sentiment can begin to be grasped if we understand the layers of its origins and if we are to read Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, letters from our founders, poetry, and even a couple magazines pre-founding. The details of the brush strokes from various angles of light observed by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, when selecting this phrase, may very well be worth more than we originally thought; and the intended meaning of these three Latin words can hardly be understood by merely translating it: out of many one.
A curated feast and flowers for my wife
Have you ever cooked a meal, I mean from scratch, cooked a meal? I’ve watched a few episodes of Julia Child and tried my hand at a meal or two. What I have found is that there are usually a lot of things that go into a meal, muchless one dish of the feast. Ingredients vary in measure, flavor, and purpose. Mix them together and they change, not in that they are no longer a cranberry or a pepper; they change in the sense that their individual quality now contrasts and complements the other ingredients in a proper balance and explosion of flavor working together for the dish as a whole. A tomato remains a tomato and likewise a cucumber remains a cucumber, but when you add another dozen ingredients of fruit, lettuce, bacon, nuts, and cheese suddenly you have a flavor-filled salad. A bowl of lettuce is a bowl of lettuce—not a salad. To demand it’s a salad speaks volumes as to the mental and digestive capacities of the creators and eager consumers of the meal.
Have you ever considered a bouquet of flowers? In a bouquet, every flower has beauty of sight and a sweet fragrance on its own, but as a whole bouquet, the complexity of the layers of beauty are multiplied.
In marriage there are plenty of dinners and bouquets, but what also exists is an abundance of differences. You can call it: differences of opinion, discussions, debates, arguments or even fights; but I can promise you, gather two humans together and eventually you will have conflict…and that’s good. That's marriage. That is, so long as marriage — the combining of two unique individuals into one union — is the goal. Out of the many women in the world, I have chosen to be one with her, my wife. We can argue about spending, our jobs within the home, or who is driving the car on this road trip; those are all acceptable and healthy debates. It’s when I spend what I want because my voice is louder and I’m bigger, when I demand uniformity to my every whim, when I’m in bed with the neighbor’s wife, and when I label my wife as my enemy, that a red flag should go up as to my resolve and the validity of the whole of marriage.
“Out of many, one” doesn’t mean uniformity, nor does it mean we find our identity in the “many” each individual is comprised of. In the party politics of today we have one party that worships at the altar of intersectionality and the other seems to find security in blind adherence to team uniformity. What’s funny is in their pursuits they actually reap the opposite results and the intersectionality champions force allegiance to everything and those seeking uniformity drive themselves to factions…I digress. We have a President that just delivered a speech. A speech I don’t entirely disagree with. A speech from the party of “diversity and inclusion.” A speech in which the President of the United States calls out a faction of Americans…Americans that believe in life, free-er markets, peace, prosperity for future generations, adherence to laws and The Constitution… as enemies to America. A sentiment of: if you don’t agree with me, you are the enemy. This sentiment is no surprise coming from someone that said, 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'. It’s this same sentiment that has an Executive Branch agency labeling organizations and individuals that use founding era imagery, flags, and vernacular as potential domestic terrorists — ie. enemies. Enemies, let that sink in for a minute; enemies for not voting for the sitting President and believing the supreme governing document of our land should be adhered to. At the same time, the rebuttal to this is to label democrats or liberals as enemies and tell people to get on the red wave, because if you are not for them you must be for us. There is a drive for blind allegiance to the red team. I certainly see how this is effective politics, but forgive me for not drooling and championing “the team” and every member and idea promoted by it.
We can argue about what we spend our money on, but when a wife wants to bring the neighbor over for sex because she likes his methods best, and then she calls you her enemy for not being okay with it; one must question if there actually is any marriage…one-ness? When you are offered a meal that is a bowl of lettuce or chili powder, and a handful of dandelions as a bouquet; one must ponder if there is something missing and to be desired in the beauty of variety.
When the original three men were tasked with creating a motto, on the very same day their unbelievable proclamation of Natural Law, legal grievance, and resolve was ratified, they studied and debated and concluded to continue in the same vein as their Declaration. Out of many forms of government, many countries, religions, colonies, peoples, and opinions America was of one resolve and purpose.
E Pluribus Unum…there are many layers to this motto of our Great Seal (many I haven’t even mentioned), sadly, I feel to most it is worth less than the penny it is printed on; and understood less than the document it followed.