Out of Many, One: The Motto We Should NEVER Have Replaced

Sixty-nine years ago today...

Small things over time become big things. Small changes can lead to large consequences, and a four-word phrase added to our money in 1957 has grown into a tool for telling Americans who belongs. 

What was slipped in quietly should be able to come out the same way. 

But today, Trump and sadly, his, HIS Republican Party would ridiculously sell its removal as a war on Christianity, proof that the left wants God erased from American life. 

That reaction is itself the argument: a motto that cannot be questioned without being called an attack on faith has stopped being a motto and become a loyalty test.

On October 1, 1957, the first American paper money carrying the words "In God We Trust" that didn't seem then as divisional and divisive as we now know they have been, went into circulation: the Series 1957 one-dollar silver certificate. 

Sixty-nine years later, the phrase is on every bill in your wallet. Hanging in our courts and government offices. This was not the America we created originally, or wanted, and for good reason.

It has also become something more than a slogan. 

Christian nationalism has moved from the fringe into statehouses, school boards, and the White House. 

Donald Trump learned that religion is a loyalty test he can sell, and he has used it to regain power and hold it. 

A national motto that ties American identity to one idea of God is the perfect tool for that project.

So on this anniversary, a modest proposal: 

retire "In God We Trust" and restore the motto that held this country together for its first 180 years. 

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Our best and original national motto. 

How God got on the money

The phrase is not a founding principle. It is a product of two wars, one hot and one cold.

1. 1864. During the Civil War, after a minister petitioned Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase to recognize God on the coinage, "In God We Trust" first appeared on the two-cent piece.
2. 1907. Theodore Roosevelt, a devout Christian, approved new gold coins without the phrase. He argued that putting God's name on money came close to sacrilege, cheapening something sacred by stamping it on what people spend. Congress overruled him in 1908 and put it back.
3. 1955. At the height of the Red Scare, Congress required the phrase on all U.S. currency, paper included. One year earlier it had added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. July 30, 1956. President Eisenhower signed the law making "In God We Trust" the official national motto, a deliberate contrast with "godless" Soviet communism.
5. October 1, 1957. The first bills bearing the motto reached the public.

The Soviet Union has been gone for 35 years. The Cold War branding outlived the Cold War, and a new movement found it waiting.

The motto we already had

E Pluribus Unum turns 250 this year, alongside the country itself. 

In August 1776, weeks after the Declaration, Congress asked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design a seal for the new nation. Their committee proposed the phrase, and it went onto the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, where it remains.

It was never written into law as the national motto. It didn't need to be. It should have been. Our Founders also didn't imagine they would need many laws to protect us from someone like Donald Trump, or that we'd ever elect such a vapid, malignant narcissist career criminal as POTUS.

It just couldn't enter than patriotic mind back then, or even in 2016.

For 180 years it served as our nation's motto in practice, on the seal, on coins, and in the civic imagination. It described what the founders were actually attempting: thirteen quarrelling colonies, many faiths, many origins, one republic.

Notice what it does not say. 

It does not say what you must believe. 

It says what we are building together.

Why it matters so very much now

A motto is not harmless just because it is old. Courts have upheld "In God We Trust" by calling it "ceremonial deism," a phrase so worn by repetition that it supposedly means nothing. 

Christian nationalists treat it as the opposite: proof that this is a Christian nation and a legal foothold for the next step.

It aids the putrid Christian accelerationism too many of them support and desire.

You can watch that step being taken. 

Several states now require "In God We Trust" posters in public school classrooms. Louisiana and Texas have passed laws ordering the Ten Commandments posted there too. In Washington, the administration has opened a White House Faith Office, launched a task force on "anti-Christian bias," and created a Religious Liberty Commission, while the president who hawked $60 Bibles casts himself as Christianity's defender.

The pattern is old and well documented. Strongmen wrap themselves in faith because faith converts political opposition into heresy. 

If the nation officially trusts in God, and the leader claims God's favor, then dissent becomes a sin. 

The motto on the money is a small piece of that machinery, but it is the piece every American carries in their pocket.

Look at the illiberal, autocratic, corruptive direction this Donald Trump administration, his Republican (Maga) Party are taking us. These tools in their war chest seem harmless, certainly to their supporters. But are far less harmless than they seem, then they proclaim, than seems obvious to many, but painfully obvious once you see it and can no longer not see it.

The case for Out of Many, One

It includes everyone. Tens of millions of Americans are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, pagan, agnostic, atheist, or simply unaffiliated. "In God We Trust" speaks for some citizens about all of them. E Pluribus Unum speaks for all of them about each other.

It matches the Constitution. 

The First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion. A government that declares, in its official motto, whom the nation trusts has taken a side. E Pluribus Unum takes no side on belief. It takes the side of the Union.

It ends the insider test. "In God We Trust" has become a quiet way of sorting real Americans from suspect ones. A motto about unity leaves no room for that sorting. You cannot be outside of "one."

It is civic, not sectarian. Believers lose nothing. Their faith does not depend on the Treasury's endorsement, and many would argue it is better off without it, as Roosevelt did. What the country gains is a shared identity built on citizenship rather than creed.

It is the original. Restoring E Pluribus Unum is not a radical change. It is a return to the founders' choice, made in the year of independence, after a 70-year Cold War detour.

Before God, there was "Mind Your Business"

The first coin authorized by the United States government carried no reference to God at all. The 1787 Fugio cent, approved by the Confederation Congress, used a design traced to Benjamin Franklin's 1776 Continental Currency.

One side shows a blazing sun over a sundial, the Latin word FUGIO ("I fly," as in time flies), and the motto MIND YOUR BUSINESS. In Franklin's day that meant attend to your work and use your hours well, not "stay out of my affairs." The other side shows thirteen linked rings, one for each state, around the words WE ARE ONE.

Franklin was a Freemason (I am one myself) and a Grand Master of Pennsylvania's Masons, and the coin speaks a language any Mason will recognize: the sun as light and reason, the dial as time and discipline, the linked rings as a chain of union. 

No record says the coin was designed as a Masonic piece, and it should not be sold as one. But its values are plainly Enlightenment values, the same ones that run through the Craft.

Read the whole coin as a sentence and you get the best civic creed this country ever minted: Time flies. Mind your business. We are one.

Sixty-nine years is long enough

The national motto lives in a single line of federal law, 36 U.S.C. § 302, and the currency requirement in two more. Congress put them there. Congress can take them out.

That will not happen this year or next. But mottos change when people stop treating them as untouchable, and that starts with saying plainly what this one has become: 

a Cold War slogan now serving a movement that wants citizenship to depend on belief.

On this anniversary, tell your representatives you want the founders' motto back. 

Share the Fugio cent with someone who has never seen it. 

And the next time someone tells you this is a Christian nation, hand them a dollar and ask them to read the seal on the back. 

It is still there, in the eagle's beak, where Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams put it 250 years ago.

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. 

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of  Claude AI 

---

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things here at Murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT