"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate"

Ulysses S. Grant’s statement advocates a strict separation between religious practices and the mechanisms of government. He suggests that religion belongs to deeply personal and wholly voluntary spaces, within the family, among church congregations, and inside private institutions that rely solely on voluntary support. By specifying that private schools should be "supported entirely by private contributions", Grant argues against public funding for religious education, reinforcing his belief that the state must not use its resources to endorse or promote religious activities.

Grant’s invocation to “keep the church and state forever separate” is a powerful affirmation of the principle of religious liberty. The intent is to preserve civic life from religious influence, ensuring that government remains neutral across faiths and belief systems. This separation not only protects government institutions from ecclesiastical interference, but also safeguards religious groups from coercion or favoritism by the state. In his era, concerns over sectarian conflict and the allocation of public funds to religious schools were prominent; Grant’s proposal sought to minimize strife by making all religious activity the domain of personal conscience and voluntary community, not public authority.

There is a clear defense here of both religious freedom and governmental impartiality. By relegating religious practice and education to private spheres, Grant underscores the idea that matters of faith are most authentic and meaningful when not mandated or subsidized by the state. This also reflects a trust in pluralism: citizens can freely form their moral and spiritual views without government involvement or pressure. Ultimately, such a model aspires to foster a public life where people of diverse beliefs may coexist peacefully, with neither side, church nor state, using the machinery of government to encroach on the rightful domain of the other. This vision remains central to modern debates about where the proper boundaries between religion and state should lie.