Lesson Title: Time Frame - Weeblyellissabbatical.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/0/0/21005546/federalists... · Lesson Title: The Art of Compromise and Negotiation, The Federalists and the

Maraline Ellis Salem-‐Keizer School District 2013-‐2014

Lesson Title: The Art of Compromise and Negotiation, The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists

Grade(s): 8 Time Frame: Multiple class periods, depends on the number of texts/sources the teacher chooses to inlcude

Planning and Preparation: This topic could take as long or as short as the teacher choose. I have tried to include a variety of texts at different levels of difficulty so the teacher has options – all students could read all or some materials or the teacher could put the most accessible pieces in the hands of students based on readiness levels. A possible lesson plan is included but there could certainly be many variations. The goal is to convey content while at the same time providing multiple opportunities to build and practice literacy skills.

Materials/Equipment Needed:

• Copies of readings for students • Copies of graphic organizer for students

Learning Standards: Common Core: 6-8 RH.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of the source distinct from prior knowledge or opinions. Social Science Content Standards 8.18 Examine and analyze important United States documents, including (but not limited to) the Constitution, Bill of Rights, 13th – 15th Amendments.

Rationale: What better time to explore an historical example of political compromise when our country is on the brink of financial default (a day away as I write this)! The tension inherent in our federal system is at the core of the disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. An understanding of this will give students insight into current issues that pit state governments and the federal government against each other. Three examples recently in the news include medical marijuana use and associated state laws, gun purchase and registration laws, and as of yesterday, the Supreme Court’s seeming intention to ignore a case on state law banning affirmative action policies (to ignore would be to let those laws stand). Big stuff! Additionally, the idea of checks and balances is well reflected in the concern by the Anti-Federalists that a federal government or representative thereof, not be allowed to acquire too much power. Somehow, two very different points of view were able to find an acceptable compromise which has stood the test of time.


Lesson Learning Target: I can explain the most important Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments.

Academic Vocabulary: Constitution ratify Federalist Anti-Federalist Great Compromise Bill of Rights amendment checks and balances

Sequence of Lesson Activities:

1. Lesson opener: ask students to respond to this prompt: What is the federal government and what services does it provide to you? This is a great opportunity to assess what students already know about the division of powers of the various levels of government.

2. Choose one of the readings provided, Creating the Constitution would work well here, and ask students to read paying careful attention to the identified positive aspects of the Constitution and the concerns about the Constitution. Have them record the information on a t-chart for discussion.

3. Ask them to share their responses with a partner and then debrief with the class as a whole.

4. Based on the teacher’s assessment of both the class’s and individual students’ understanding, determine which text would be come next: a. To Sign or Not to Sign, A Read Aloud Play – this summarizes the

perspectives of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists and serves to reinforce fluency

b. Introducing the Constitution – this is a great overview and is followed by an activity in which students must express their own ideas about why the Great Compromise is necessary.

c. James Iredell and Willie Jones – the positions of two men with opposing ideas are presented. For students ready for a challenge, this material serves as a great foundation for a debate.

d. Positions on the Constitution – an overview and summary that may be above the reading level of many middle schoolers.

e. Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist – a very readable summary that lays the groundwork for the graphic organizer at the end of this document – a compare and contrast activity based on opposing points of view.

f. Federalist and Anti-Federalist Quotations – three quotations from each side are provided. This would work well as a check for understanding. If students are given the quotations separately (without labels), can


they correctly categorize them as Federalist or Anti-Federalist.

Questions for discussion:

• Why did the colonies decide they need a national government in addition to state governments?

• Why were they worried about a government having too much power? • What does federalism mean? • Do you think things have changed between the states and the federal government

since this period in history? • What did the Federalists believe? • What did the Anti-Federalists believe? • If you could have chosen, which side would you have supported? • Do you see versions of these issues being debated today?

Check for Understanding

• Student responses to opening prompt (pre-assessment) • Student responses to graphic organizer(s) • Students’ ability to correctly identify quotation as

Federalist or Anti-Federalist


Creating the Constitution When was the last time you successfully changed anyone’s mind about anything?

Or even gotten a small group of people to agree on what movie to see?

Now try to imagine this. Fifty-five men getting together in Philadelphia one muggy summer in 1787, trying to create a nation. Now imagine that most of them were lawyers. Well, that’s what it was like. And it would take 3 1⁄2 months of quarreling and compromise. But somehow those men managed to hammer out the framework for our nation’s Constitution. Pretty soon there were some basic questions in the room about the very things they had fought so hard for. Freedom and power. It wasn’t so long ago that colonists had won their freedom from the king of England. So no one was in a hurry to hand over too much power to any government, even their own. And wouldn’t a stronger central government mean weaker individual states?

Ultimately, those 55 delegates came up with a brilliant compromise. A balance between federal power and states’ rights that still hangs delicately today. And as for how the government should actually be set up, well, they settled on the remarkable idea of dividing it into three branches. The executive, the judiciary, and the legislative. When it was all over, these men forged a document that defined a country, complete with built-in checks and balances designed to keep everyone honest.

But the document wasn’t perfect. For all its promise of freedom and justice, it included compromises, like slavery, that would take years, even bloodshed, to resolve. Some critics felt it also overlooked some crucial fundamental rights. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, took care of that. However imperfect the document, it begins with three perfect words. “We, the People.”

For over 200 years, presidents, lawyers, senators, judges, politicians, and protestors have been examining the “We” in “We, the People.” Pulling at it, trying to get it to expand or contract, and in doing so, shaping the character of our nation.

National Constitution Center http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/ConDayKit.pdf

Positive aspects of the Constitution Concerns about the Constitution


Creating the Constitution When was the last time you successfully changed anyone’s mind about anything?

Or even gotten a small group of people to agree on what movie to see?

Now try to imagine this. Fifty-five men getting together in Philadelphia one muggy summer in 1787, trying to create a nation. Now imagine that most of them were lawyers. Well, that’s what it was like. And it would take 3 1⁄2 months of quarreling and compromise. But somehow those men managed to hammer out the framework for our nation’s Constitution. Pretty soon there were some basic questions in the room about the very things they had fought so hard for. Freedom and power. It wasn’t so long ago that colonists had won their freedom from the king of England. So no one was in a hurry to hand over too much power to any government, even their own. And wouldn’t a stronger central government mean weaker individual states?

Ultimately, those 55 delegates came up with a brilliant compromise. A balance between federal power and states’ rights that still hangs delicately today. And as for how the government should actually be set up, well, they settled on the remarkable idea of dividing it into three branches. The executive, the judiciary, and the legislative. When it was all over, these men forged a document that defined a country, complete with built-in checks and balances designed to keep everyone honest.

But the document wasn’t perfect. For all its promise of freedom and justice, it included compromises, like slavery, that would take years, even bloodshed, to resolve. Some critics felt it also overlooked some crucial fundamental rights. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, took care of that. However imperfect the document, it begins with three perfect words. “We, the People.”

For over 200 years, presidents, lawyers, senators, judges, politicians, and protestors have been examining the “We” in “We, the People.” Pulling at it, trying to get it to expand or contract, and in doing so, shaping the character of our nation.


Positive aspects of the Constitution Concerns about the Constitution

Brilliant compromise Slavery continued

Three branches: Bloodshed required to resolve this

Executive, Judiciary, Legislative Overlooked some rights

Defined our country Added Bill of Rights

Checks and balances to keep us honest


To Sign or Not to Sign: A Read-Aloud Play

Characters: �� John Jay, a citizen of NewYork and a Federalist �� Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts and an Anti-Federalist

John Jay: Mr. Gerry, I humbly request that you reconsider your reasons for not supporting this Constitution.

Elbridge Gerry: But Mr. Jay, I cannot stand by it! I cannot sign my name to a document that does not secure the rights of every American.

Jay: But we are accounting for that. We will have a chance to amend the Constitution.

Gerry: Yes, but should free people adopt a form of government that they believe needs amendment? This document is unacceptable!

Jay: This document is as good as we can make it. Tell me Mr. Gerry, do you think it is possible to come up with a better plan? We cannot please everyone. I say that delaying the ratification of this Constitution will put our country at great risk.

Gerry: I know, you believe that our enemies will see our indecision as weakness, and our creditors may stop lending to us. But isn’t personal freedom important, too?

Jay: We have been meeting for such a long time. What if we reject this Constitution? Would we ever be able to come up with something better?

Gerry: What do you suggest we do?

Jay: I believe we should ratify the Constitution, give it a fair amount of time to work for the people, and fix it as time, occasion, and experience may dictate. What do you suggest we do, Mr. Gerry?

Gerry: I believe we should add a bill of rights that secures the liberties of the American people. It pains me to disagree so strongly with those who signed, but I sincerely believe that the American people deserve to have their rights protected.

Jay: Well, Mr. Gerry, we are putting this decision in the hands of the American people.

Gerry: Indeed, and I sincerely hope that whatever Constitution is finally adopted will secure the liberty and happiness of America.



Introducing the Constitution

After the American Revolution established the independence of the United States from Britain, a great challenge faced the leaders of this ��new nation. While the United States was free to set its own course, the challenge of creating a set of rules and laws that would unite a diverse set of people tested the leaders of this fragile new nation. At first, the Articles of Confederation (1781) provided the law of the land, but it quickly became clear that a project like the United States demanded a strong central government. Over the summer of 1787, delegates from 12 of the 13 states gathered in Philadelphia to fashion a government from scratch.

They decided to write a new Constitution and met in secrecy for ��55 days in the sweltering heat, trying to resolve many of the problems ��about which people in the states felt�� so strongly. The biggest hurdle was to find a middle ground between those who favored a federal system in which a national government would hold most of the authority (Federalists), and those who wanted individual states ��to have maximum power to make decisions locally (Anti-Federalists).

The Anti-Federalists felt that their loyalty was to their state, not a central government. After all, they had fought as Virginians and Pennsylvanians ��and they had won the war hadn’t they? There was deep distrust of any government that was too centralized because there was the danger that it would become like the monarchy of King George III and not allow them to make decisions about their own lives. However, Americans also realized that a strong central government was needed to negotiate with large foreign powers such as Spain and France, and to develop treaties and relations with Native Americans.

There were other challenges to ��solve. Small states wanted as much representation as the large states because they were each distinct political bodies, while the large states thought they should have more representatives because they had more people. The task at hand for ��the delegates was to find a system of government that would be acceptable to all groups.

Two key words are helpful in understanding how the United States arrived at a Constitution: balance�� and compromise. The delegates ��at the Constitutional Convention decided to establish one federal government with three main branches: legislative, executive, and judicial (the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court). The�� power of individual states would be preserved by Congress, which was split between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state would be allowed two senators and representatives to the House based on the size of the state’s population. This later became known as the “Great Compromise.” Other compromises included the decision to count African Americans as three-fifths of a person and to agree not to make any laws barring slave importation for twenty years. Meanwhile, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 barred slavery from this new territory.

Once the Constitution was written, it needed to be ratified by the people��of at least nine of the thirteen states in order to be valid. Frenzied debate ensued over the course of nearly a year – in newspapers, political meetings, on street corners – before the Constitution was finally ratified by enough states in 1788. Worries about the protection of individual freedoms were answered by the Bill of Rights, a set of ten Constitutional amendments passed in 1791. These additions to the Constitution promised that the federal government would protect the rights of individual citizens. The founding documents had been determined, but a new process had been set in motion as Americans struggled to define��the boundaries of these words. This document, setting forth the rules for��a representational democracy that��was the first of its kind, is the oldest constitution still in use today.


Fun Facts:

Where in the world is the Constitution?

The original draft of the Constitution is on ��display at the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Where was the Constitution sent for safe storage during World War II?

http://www.history.com/images/media/pdf/Constitution-LessonPlans.pdf

Help! The Constitution is in trouble. The

Constitutional Convention has gone on for several hot summer months and still no final document has been produced. Conflicts between the larger and smaller states continue as both sides feel their interests will be sacrificed by

the Constitutional plans on the table. Your help is greatly needed: your father or brother is a delegate from Delaware, ��and he has

decided to vote against the “Great Compromise” which would leave the

Constitution just short of an agreement. While everyone in your family thinks you are shy and oblivious to the

debate, you have actually been following very closely and have some of the best insights into why the “Great Compromise” is the best path for the

Convention to follow. Write an impassioned letter to your father or brother

making��the argument for why the “Great Compromise” is the best plan and why an agreement on the Constitutional draft is necessary.


James Iredell

You emigrated to Edenton, North Carolina from England in 1767, when you were 17 years old. There, you worked as a deputy collector for the port of Edenton. While working at the customs house, you developed an interest in law and were admitted to the bar in 1771. You feel this success has occurred largely with the help of God, since you are a devout Anglican. Although your job at the port was supplied by the British government, you were a strong supporter of independence and the Revolution. After the Revolution began, you helped organize the court system of North Carolina and were elected a judge of the Superior Court in 1778. Your political career advanced from there.

Most recently, you have become a prominent leader of the Federalists in North Carolina, and you are a strong supporter of the proposed United States Constitution. In order for the Constitution of the United States to be ratified, 9 of the 13 states must approve it. As a Federalist, and due to your love of your country and the law, you passionately believe that the new government as outlined in the Constitution will provide the perfect balance between the national government and the state governments. It makes no sense to you that anyone would reject the new Constitution, when everyone seemed to agree that the Articles of Confederation created too weak of a national government. If the national government isn’t given some kind of power, Congress will always have trouble raising money for defending the United States. Also, how will disputes between the states ever be settled without a national government having the ability to do so? The poor Governor of Massachusetts had a mess on his hands with Shays’ Rebellion, and you are surprised everyone hasn’t learned the lesson in that. You feel that North Carolina needs to join the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Georgia, who quickly voted to adopt the Constitution.

Today, July 21, 1788, you are attending the North Carolina state convention in Hillsborough, NC, where you hope to convince North Carolina to accept and ratify the Constitution. Your opponent at the debate will be Anti- Federalist Willie Jones.

North Carolina must say YES to avoid a MESS!


Willie Jones

You were born in Northampton County, N.C. and after attending college, became an American planter and statesman in Halifax County, North Carolina. You represented North Carolina as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1780. For a brief time in 1776, as the head of North Carolina's Committee of Safety, you were put in charge of the state's revolutionary government, until Richard Caswell was elected as Governor. Afterwards you served in the North Carolina House of Commons and were elected to the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787, but declined to accept.

Most recently, you have become a prominent leader of the Anti-Federalists in North Carolina, and you are a strong opponent of ratifying the proposed Constitution. As an Anti-Federalist, you passionately believe that the new Constitution creates a central government with too much power. Giving the federal government too much power might result in a situation as bad as Britain’s unfair control over the colonies. The country had to endure a war to over throw the tyrant King George. Now, the Constitution as it stands can give the federal government that same kind of power, and people are always ready to abuse power! It makes no sense to you why anyone would ratify this document unless they wish to give up their state’s rights. Also, you are disturbed by the fact that the Constitution has no bill of rights to protect the liberty of individual citizens.

Today, July 21, 1788, you are attending the North Carolina state convention in Hillsborough, NC, where you must convince delegates to refuse to ratify the Constitution. Your opponent at the debate will be Federalist James Iredell.

North Carolina must say NO to avoid a ROW*!

*row: a noisy dispute or quarrel

NC Civic Education Consortium http://database.civics.unc.edu/




Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

When the American Revolutionary War ended, the colonists faced many problems. Even though people from different colonies had joined together to fight the British, they still felt that they were citizens of their own separate colonies. The Articles of Confederation set up a new government that was very loosely organized. The “Articles” gave most of the power to the states and very little power to the national government. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no national executive or court system. The national government could not raise an army, collect taxes, or regulate trade between the states. Even though the new government could print and coin money, many states printed their own money. Some even placed tariffs on goods from other states. Just imagine the problems this created! To buy or sell goods in the next state, one might have to use a different currency or even pay a tariff. With no power to raise an army, the new nation was vulnerable to attack from other countries. Faced with debt, economic problems and struggles between the states, the Articles of Confederation were not working! Many were afraid that the states might separate into thirteen different countries.

Because of the many problems under the Articles of Confederation, each state was asked to send delegates to a convention in Philadelphia in May, 1787. The purpose of the convention was to discuss how to make the national government stronger. Rhode Island was the only state that did not send a delegate. Fifty-five delegates from twelve states gathered at the Pennsylvania State House. Because they wanted to be able to discuss and debate their ideas “freely,” it was decided to conduct all meetings in secret. Guards were placed at the doors and the State House windows were covered. So began long months of discussion, debate, and compromise. Early in the convention, the delegates came to an unexpected decision. They decided that rather than try to fix the Articles of Confederation, a new plan of government with a new constitution needed to be developed. As the discussion and debate proceeded, a division took place among


the delegates. One group, the Federalists, believed in a strong national government. The other group, the Anti-Federalists, favored states and individual rights.

Who Were the Federalists?

The Federalists believed in a strong national government that would have power over the states. They believed that a large republic was the best way to protect individual rights and freedom. The members of this group were more likely to be wealthier merchants, bankers, lawyers, manufacturers, and plantation owners. The Federalists tended to be more educated. John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were important Federalists.

The Federalists were in favor of a national bank and did not think that a bill of rights was needed. They were in favor of ratifying the Constitution.

Who Were the Anti-Federalists?

The Anti-Federalists were against a strong national government. They believed that each state should have its own independent government. Many Anti-Federalists didn’t have a lot of trust in government and feared that a strong national executive might become a king or dictator. They also felt that only a small republic could protect individual rights and freedom. The Anti-Federalists were mostly farmers and tradesmen and less likely to be wealthy. Among the important Anti-Federalists were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Edmond Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to a national bank and believed that a bill of rights was important and necessary. They were opposed to ratifying the Constitution.

The Great Debate


The delegates discussed, debated and compromised for many long months. Finally, in September the final draft was ready to be signed. Some of the delegates were not happy with the new Constitution and some left Philadelphia. On the signing day, September 17th, only 42 delegates were present. Three delegates refused to sign the Constitution that day- Anti-Federalists George Mason, Edmond Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry.

The new Constitution had to be approved (ratified) by 9 of the 13 states. Debates and arguments started throughout the states. Essays and letters were written; newspaper articles and pamphlets appeared that supported and opposed the new constitution. Political celebrations, parades and protests were held. Speeches were made in meeting houses, taverns and on street corners. Friends, neighbors, workers and family members discussed and debated the issues. One of the most hotly debated issues was that the Constitution did not have a bill of rights. By the end of July 1788, eleven states had ratified the Constitution. North Carolina and Rhode Island still would not approve the Constitution until it had a bill of rights. Finally, James Madison drafted a bill of rights in 1789. By November, North Carolina had ratified the constitution. But it would not be until May of the following year that Rhode Island would vote to ratify. It was the Anti-Federalist outcry that caused the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) to be added to the United States Constitution. These 10 amendments guarantee rights and freedoms that are basic to all Americans.

Who was the winner in this debate? If the Federalists hadn’t won, we wouldn’t have a Constitution. But if the Anti-Federalists hadn’t disagreed, the Constitution would not have a Bill of Rights.


Federalist and Anti-Federalist Quotations Federalist

If men were angels, no government would be necessary... You must first enable the government to control the governed..” - James Madison,

Federalist Papers “Number 51”

Excerpt taken from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

“I agree to this Constitution, because I think a general government is necessary for us.... . . I hope ... we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this constitution . . .” - Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, 1787

Excerpt taken from: http://www.constitution.org

“The prosperity of America depend[s] on the Union. To preserve and perpetuate [maintain] it was the great object of the. . . . plan which the convention has advised [the people] to adopt. . . . “- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers “Number 45”

Excerpt taken from: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html


Anti-Federalist

“I will now tell you what I do no not like. First, [there is no] bill of rights. . . A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth. . . .” - Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787

Excerpt taken from: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

“Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw a government - Patrick Henry, Ratifying convention speech, “Need for a Bill of Rights” Excerpt taken from: http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm

“This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful...Your President may easily become King...” - Patrick Henry, “Shall Liberty or Empire be sought”

Excerpt taken from: http://www.saf.org/PatrickHenry060588.html


Attachment B Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

Federalists Anti-Federalists

How are they alike?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How are they different?

Federalists Anti-Federalists

Who were their leaders?

Were they in favor of ratifying the Constitution?

Were they in favor of a strong National Government?

What were the major occupations, social, and economic statuses of group members?

Were they in favor of a national bank?

Documents

Lesson Title: Time Frame - Weeblyellissabbatical.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/0/0/21005546/federalists... · Lesson Title: The Art of Compromise and Negotiation, The Federalists and the