Ulysses S Grant’s Vision for an Enlightened Republic and the Legacy of Lee Atwater’s Republican Strategy
Ulysses S. Grant’s call for an enlightened and educated Republic stands in stark contrast to the divisive political strategies pioneered by Lee Atwater and perpetuated in today’s Republican Party. Can
Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th President of the United States, delivered a powerful speech at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Army of the Tennessee in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 29, 1875. Grant’s remarks, reflecting his deep concern for the future of American democracy, underscored the importance of education, free thought, and the separation of church and state as fundamental pillars for preserving the Republic. His vision called for a society where the “citizen is sovereign and the official the servant,” where intelligence, fostered through free public education, serves as the foundation for a free nation.
“If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.” Ulyses S. Grant
Grant foresaw a future conflict not defined by geographic lines, like the Mason-Dixon line, but by a division between “patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.” His words resonate profoundly today, in light of the contemporary political strategies and conflicts within the Republican Party, shaped significantly by figures like Lee Atwater in the late 20th century.
Grant’s Warning: A Battle Between Enlightenment and Ignorance
Grant’s speech emphasized the critical role of education in safeguarding American democracy. He argued that to maintain a republic “where the citizen is sovereign,” it is essential to ensure that the people possess the intelligence necessary to make informed decisions. For Grant, this intelligence was to be cultivated through free, secular education accessible to all citizens, ensuring that knowledge, rather than ignorance or superstition, guided the nation’s future.
Grant predicted that if America were to face another internal conflict, it would not be over sectional lines, but rather between forces of enlightenment — those who value free thought, education, and a democratic society — and forces of ignorance and ambition, which thrive on division and manipulation. This conflict would hinge on whether citizens could rise above narrow-minded ideologies and base instincts to preserve the Republic’s foundational principles.
Lee Atwater and the Republican Strategy: A Contrast to Grant’s Vision
Lee Atwater, a Republican strategist in the late 20th century, employed tactics that seem to directly contradict Grant’s appeal for enlightenment and informed citizenship. Atwater’s approach, which helped shape the modern Republican Party, relied on appealing to racial fears and cultural anxieties through what is now known as the “Southern Strategy.”
Atwater refined and expanded this strategy to use racially coded language to appeal to white voters who were unsettled by the rapid social changes brought about by the Civil Rights Movement. He moved from overtly racist language to subtler, yet still divisive, appeals that targeted issues like crime, welfare, and states’ rights — terms that carried implicit racial connotations. This shift from direct to coded language allowed Atwater to maintain a veneer of respectability while still mobilizing voters’ fears and resentments.
In an infamous interview, Atwater candidly explained this strategy: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N*****, n*****, n*****.’ By 1968, you can’t say ‘n*****’ — that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like ‘forced busing,’ ‘states’ rights,’ and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Atwater’s strategy hinged on exploiting ignorance, fear, and division — exactly the kind of forces Grant warned against. Instead of promoting intelligence and unity, Atwater’s tactics stoked cultural resentment and appealed to base instincts, ultimately contributing to a more polarized and divided political landscape.
From Atwater to Trump: The Legacy of Division
Atwater’s approach to political strategy laid the groundwork for what would later become Donald Trump’s style of politics. Trump’s political messaging has drawn heavily from the tactics Atwater pioneered, though with a shift from subtle dog-whistles to more explicit appeals to racial and cultural anxieties.
While Atwater relied on coded language to invoke racial resentment, Trump has often used more overt language, making comments about Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” defending white supremacists in Charlottesville as “very fine people,” and calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country. These statements reflect a shift from Atwater’s nuanced, strategic use of language to a more direct, confrontational style that speaks to similar fears and divisions.
This shift from subtlety to overt rhetoric marks a significant evolution in the Republican Party’s strategy, but the underlying principles remain the same: appealing to fear, division, and cultural anxieties to win votes. Trump’s use of social media to bypass traditional media channels and directly engage his base mirrors Atwater’s media manipulation techniques, but on a much larger, more instantaneous scale.
The Modern GOP and the Struggle for the Soul of the Republic
Grant’s plea for a Republic guided by intelligence, free thought, and a commitment to public education stands in stark contrast to the political tactics pioneered by Atwater and continued by Trump’s Republican Party. Where Grant saw education and free schools as vital to the nation’s survival, Atwater and his successors have often positioned public institutions, including education, as part of a liberal elite conspiracy to undermine traditional American values.
The ongoing culture wars — fueled by debates over “critical race theory,” immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and more — reflect the very divide Grant predicted: a conflict not along sectional lines, but between enlightenment and ignorance. The Republican Party, under Trump’s influence, has often doubled down on strategies that emphasize division and fear over unity and understanding, appealing to a base that feels disenfranchised by rapid social change.
The Enduring Relevance of Grant’s Warning
Grant’s words remain relevant today, as the U.S. grapples with deep political divisions and a contentious debate over the future direction of the nation. His call for a Republic where the citizen is sovereign and the government serves the people’s will, rooted in education and enlightenment, offers a powerful counterpoint to the divisive strategies that have come to dominate contemporary politics.
Grant’s vision reminds us that the health of a democratic society depends on an informed and engaged citizenry, one that values knowledge over ignorance, unity over division, and public good over private gain. The challenge for America today, as it was in Grant’s time, is whether it can live up to these ideals or whether it will be torn apart by the forces of ambition, superstition, and ignorance that he so clearly foresaw.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The enduring relevance of Grant’s call to strengthen the foundation of the Republic through education and the promotion of free thought provides a crucial lens through which to view today’s political landscape. As the nation moves toward future elections, the choice remains between a vision of unity, intelligence, and democratic engagement versus one of division, fear, and manipulation. The legacy of Atwater’s tactics, now embedded in the modern Republican Party, challenges us to consider how best to realize Grant’s vision of a republic where “the sovereign — the people — should possess intelligence.”
Grant’s challenge to America is to ensure that the battles fought for freedom and equality have not been in vain. In an era of increasing polarization, his vision for a Republic grounded in education, equality, and the separation of church and state is more important than ever. The question remains: Will America heed his warning or continue down the path of division laid out by Atwater and his successors?