Federalist v. Anti-Federalist Debate Lesson Plan
Grade/subject: 10th Grade (Sophomores), Pre-IB/AP US History
Unit Topic: Forging the New Nation
Standards:
Social Studies
S1C1PO5. Evaluate primary and secondary sources for:
a. authors’ main points
b. purpose and perspective
c. facts vs. opinions
d. different points of view on the same historical event
S1C4PO4. Analyze how the new national government was created: d struggles over the ratification of the
Constitution; e creation of the Bill of Rights
Common Core
9-10.RH.1. Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources
9-10.RH.2. Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate
summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.
9-10.RH.3. Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text; determine whether earlier events caused later
ones or simply preceded them.
9-10.RH.6. Compare the point of view of two or more authors for how they treat the same or similar topics,
including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts.
Materials:
1. Debate Prep questions
2. Federalist/Anti-federalist packets
3. In-class debate sheet
4. Moderator/teacher debate ballots
5. Candy (optional)
Technology:
None
Homework:
Chapter 10 BPs
Objective: SWBAT justify why we should or should not pass the Constitution with a Bill of Rights (Bloom’s
Level, Evaluation).
Sub-Objectives
Previous Day
SWBAT analyze the strengths and
weaknesses of either the Federalist
or Anti-Federalist position on
whether the Constitution should be
Teaching Strategies
Previous Day
Active Student Participation
Previous Day
Prior to the debate students read
and analyzed primary Federalist or
Anti-Federalist documents and
determined what their strengths and
passed with or without the
Constitution (Bloom’s Level,
Analysis).
Day of Debate
SWBAT justify why we should or
should not pass the Constitution
with a Bill of Rights (Bloom’s
Level, Evaluation).
Day of Debate
Teacher will be monitoring
arguments made during the debate
as well as keeping a tally of who
makes the better argument to
determine who “wins”.
weaknesses were. They answered
these questions on a debate prep
sheet that they will have with them
during the debate.
Day of Debate
Students will complete an in-class
sheet to make sure they are getting
both sides of the debate. At the end
of the debate, based on in-class
arguments, students will determine
whether we should pass a BOR or
not.
1. Move desks so they are acing each other the day before
2. Have the students sit down on their respective sides- close to where their usual desks are
a. Have debate prep questions on your desk as well as the primary source packet
3. Hand out in-class debate sheet
a. Give moderator their ballot
b. Explain the debate sheet- especially question 9. Answer question 9 based on IN CLASS
ARGUMENTS not what you read at home- want to see if your mind was changed.
4. Debate!
a. Make sure to tell them there is to be no talking during the debate or points will be docked from
an ASSESSMENT grade
b. 6 minute Position Presentation – Federalist
c. 6 minute Position Presentation – Anti-Federalist
d. 5 minute work period
e. 4 minute Rebuttal – Federalist
f. 4 minute Rebuttal – Anti-Federalist
g. 4 minute work period
h. 2 minute Response – Federalist
i. 2 minute Response – Anti-Federalist
j. 2 minute work period
k. 2 minute Position Summary – Federalist
l. 2 minute Position Summary – Anti-Federalist
5. Add up ballots
a. During debate the moderator and teacher are marking up the debate ballot. After the debate the
moderator and teacher will average their scores to determine a winner
b. As teacher and moderator are doing this students will be answering question 9 and turning in
both their in-class debate sheet and their debate prep questions
c. Once the moderator and teacher have added up, tell them who won! If district allows it give 2-3
points extra credit for the winners, if not then give them candy.
Federalist v. Anti-Federalist Debate Guidelines
Introduction
The classroom debates are exercises designed to allow you to strengthen your skills in the areas of leadership,
interpersonal influence, teambuilding, group problem solving, and oral presentation. Note: This will be for an
assessment grade, so make sure you come to class prepared; this means that you need to read your position
thoroughly and answer the questions pertaining to your point of view. If you have a leadership role for the
debate you must come prepared to fulfill that role.
Debate Format/Positions
Moderator -- calls the debate to order, poses the debatable point/question, introduces the debaters and their
roles, and fills out the debate ballot.
6 minute Position Presentation – Federalist (Lead Debater/Constructor -- presents the main points/arguments for
his or her team's stand on the topic of the debate.)
6 minute Position Presentation – Anti-Federalist (Lead Debater/Constructor -- presents the main
points/arguments for his or her team's stand on the topic of the debate.)
5 minute Work Period
4 minute Rebuttal – Federalist (Questioner/Cross-Examiner -- poses questions about the opposing team's
arguments)
4 minute Rebuttal – Anti-Federalist (Questioner/Cross-Examiner -- poses questions about the opposing team's
arguments)
3 minute Work Period
2 minute Response – Federalist (Rebutter -- responds on behalf of his or her team to as many of the questions
raised in the cross-examination as possible)
2 minute Response – Anti-Federalist (Rebutter -- responds on behalf of his or her team to as many of the
questions raised in the cross-examination as possible)
1 minute Work Period
2 minute Position Summary – Federalist (Summarizer -- closes the debate by summarizing the main points of
his or her team's arguments, especially attempts by the opposition to shoot holes in their arguments)
2 minute Position Summary – Anti-Federalist (Summarizer -- closes the debate by summarizing the main points
of his or her team's arguments, especially attempts by the opposition to shoot holes in their arguments)
Team members are prohibited from speaking to the audience or opposing team except at the times specifically
allocated to them. Thus, there can be no immediate exchange of comments between the teams. Note that no
new information may be introduced during the summary. Doing so may result in disqualification of the
offending group. If either team feels that their opponents are introducing new information during the summary,
they may challenge them immediately and request a ruling from the instructor. Note: If there are any
instances of disrespect or name-calling the debate will be cancelled and a different form of assessment
will be given.
Anti-Federalist Paper #9
We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniencies to which the late
confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the
rabble—and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, “that all men are born equal”—
beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as
were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our
friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.
1st. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in
governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something
like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of
Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill
they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. . . .
2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a short time will think and act like us,
independently of popular whims and prejudices. . . . We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective
states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it
individually, we have determined . . . and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent
state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand
continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or
determining the width of cart wheels . . . Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to
restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS—to draw that discrimination we have so long sought
after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices . . .
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.
Anti-Federalist Paper # 46
. . . We find here that the Congress in its legislative capacity, shall have the power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, and excises; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to fix the rule for naturalization and the laws of
bankruptcy; to coin money; to punish counterfeiters; to establish post offices and post roads; to secure copy
rights to authors; to constitute tribunals; to define and punish piracies; to declare war; to raise and support
armies; to provide and support a navy; to call forth the militia; to organize, arm and discipline the militia; to
exercise absolute power over a district ten miles square, independent of all the State legislatures, and to be alike
absolute over all forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings thereunto belonging. This
is a short abstract of the powers given to Congress . . . My object is to consider that undefined, unbounded and
immense power which is comprised in the following clause—“And to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in
the government of the United States; or in any department or offices thereof.” Under such a clause as this, can
anything be said to be reserved and kept back from Congress? . . . Besides the powers already mentioned, other
powers may be assumed hereafter as contained by implication in this constitution. The Congress shall judge of
what is necessary and proper in all these cases, and in all other cases—in short, in all cases whatsoever. Where
then is the restraint? How are Congress bound down to the powers expressly given? What is reserved, or can be
reserved? Yet even this is not all. As if it were determined that no doubt should remain, by the sixth article of
the Constitution it is declared that “this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shalt
be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
Constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Congress are therefore vested with the
supreme legislative power, without control. In giving such immense, such unlimited powers, was there no
necessity of a Bill of Rights, to secure to the people their liberties? Is it not evident that we are left wholly
dependent on the wisdom and virtue of the men who shall from time to time be the members of Congress? And
who shall be able to say seven years hence, the members of Congress will be wise and good men, or of the
contrary character?
Anti-Federalist Paper #84
When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid. The
Constitution proposed to your acceptance is designed, not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn.
The principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and precisely
stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this subject there is almost
an entire silence. If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn
declarations, they hold this truth as self-evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any
class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows.
The origin of society, then, is to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over
another, but in the united consent of those who associate . . . The common good, therefore, is the end of civil
government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary
that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order that what remained should be preserved .
. . But rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are
vested, for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals
in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to
their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries . . . This
principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our own States; there is not one of them but what is
either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the
body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high, and when an appeal was
made to the people to form Constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that
such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is, therefore, the more astonishing, that
this grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution. . . . The powers, rights and
authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object
to which they extend, as that of any State government—it reaches to every thing which concerns human
happiness—life, liberty, and property are under its control. . . . So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is
less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This
system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last
will, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For it being a plan of
government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the time of its
adoption, must yield to it.. . . Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to
have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help
suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this
Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute
state of vassalage.
© 2013 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History www.gilderlehrman.org
Elbridge Gerry’s Reasons for Not Signing the Federal Constitution
[text from http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/newnatn/usconst/egerry.html]
Gentlemen: I have the honor to enclose, pursuant to my commission, the Constitution proposed by the Federal
Convention.
To this system I gave my dissent, and shall submit my objections to the honorable legislature.
It was painful for me, on a subject of such national importance, to differ from the respectable members who
signed the Constitution; but conceiving, as I did, that the liberties of America were not secured by the system, it
was my duty to oppose it.
My principal objections to the plan are, that there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people;
that they have no security for the right of election; that some of the powers of the legislature are ambiguous, and
others indefinite and dangerous; that the executive is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the
legislature; that the judicial department will be oppressive; that treaties of the highest importance may be
formed by the President, with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and that the system is without
the security of a bill of rights .These are objections which are not local, but apply equally to all the states.
As the Convention was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and
reporting to Congress, and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions as shall render the Federal
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union,” I did not conceive
that these powers extend to the formation of the plan proposed; but the Convention being of a different opinion,
I acquiesced in it, being fully convinced that, to preserve the Union, an efficient government was indispensably
necessary, and that it would be difficult to make proper amendments to the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution proposed has few, if any, federal features, but is rather a system of national government.
Nevertheless, in many respects, I think it has great merit, and, by proper amendments, may be adapted to the
“exigencies of government, and preservation of liberty.”
The question on this plan involves others of the highest importance: 1. Whether there shall be a dissolution of
the federal government; 2. Whether the several state governments shall be so altered as in effect to be dissolved;
3. Whether, in lieu of the federal and state governments, the national Constitution now proposed shall be
substituted without amendment. Never, perhaps, were a people called on to decide a question of greater
magnitude. Should the citizens of America adopt the plan as it now stands, their liberties may be lost; or should
they reject it altogether, anarchy may ensue. It is evident, therefore, that they should not be precipitate in their
decisions; that the subject should be well understood;--lest they should refuse to support the government after
having hastily accepted it.
If those who are in favor of the Constitution, as well as those who are against it, should preserve moderation,
their discussions may afford much information, and finally direct to a happy issue.
It may be urged by some, that an implicit confidence should be placed in the Convention; but, however
respectable the members may be who signed the Constitution, it must be admitted that a free people are the
proper guardians of their rights and liberties; that the greatest men may err, and that their errors are sometimes
of the greatest magnitude.
Others may suppose that the Constitution may be safely adopted, because therein provision is made to amend it.
But cannot this object be better attained before a ratification than after it? And should a free people adopt a form
of government under conviction that it wants amendment?
And some may conceive that, if the plan is not accepted by the people, they will not unite in another. But surely,
while they have the power to amend, they are not under the necessity of rejecting it.
I have been detained here longer than I expected, but shall leave this place in a day or two for Massachusetts,
and on my arrival shall submit the reasons (if required by the legislature) on which my objections are grounded.
I shall only add that, as the welfare of the Union requires a better Constitution than the Confederation, I shall
think it my duty, as a citizen of Massachusetts, to support that which shall be finally adopted, sincerely hoping it
will secure the liberty and happiness of America.
I have the honor to be, gentlemen, with the highest respect for the honorable legislature and yourselves, your
most obedient and very humble servant,
E. GERRY.
To the Hon . Samuel Adams , Esq., President of the Senate, and the Hon . James Warren , Esq., Speaker of the
House of Representatives, of Massachusetts.
Name: ____________________________________________________ Pd: _____
Directions: On the following paper you will answer the following questions from an Anti-Federalist opinion.
These questions are going to be due Wednesday, October 8 by the end of class, if you do not complete these
questions you cannot receive full points on your assessment.
1. How do Anti-Federalists feel about a Bill of Rights being added to the Constitution? What evidence do
you have of this?
2. How do Anti-Federalists address concerns about the “powers of government” under this new
Constitution? What evidence do you have of this?
3. Can you explain why this Constitution is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole? What
evidence do you have of this?
4. What is one weakness of your side’s position? What evidence do you have of this?
Federalist Paper #10
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately
developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction . . . By a faction, I understand a number
of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some
common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by
removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of
faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen
the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. It could never be more truly said than of the first
remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it
instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it
nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it
imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As
long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have
a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable
obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the
protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds
of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective
proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties . . . The inference to which we are
brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of
controlling its EFFECTS . . . From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by
which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government
in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction . . . A republic, by which I mean a government in
which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we
are seeking . . . The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation
of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number
of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first
difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a
chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism
and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations . . . Hence, it clearly
appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is
enjoyed by a large over a small republic,—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
Federalist Paper #51
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government,
which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that
each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of
each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others . . . But the great
security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to
those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist
encroachments of the others . . . It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary
to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human
nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external
nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered
by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed;
and in the next place oblige it to control itself . . . In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily
predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to
render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other
as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be
necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative
authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand,
that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense
with which the executive magistrate should be armed . . . In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the
people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a
division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the
power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted
to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the
people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by
itself.
Federalist Paper #84
The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights . .
. It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and
their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the
prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John . . . It is evident,
therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly
founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in
strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular
reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.” . . . I go further,
and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions
to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were
granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should
it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may
be imposed? . . . There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the
declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose,
A BILL OF RIGHTS . . . And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it
one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and
administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the
convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the
State constitutions. . . The great bulk of the citizens of America are with reason convinced, that Union is the
basis of their political happiness. Men of sense of all parties now, with few exceptions, agree that it cannot be
preserved under the present system, nor without radical alterations; that new and extensive powers ought to be
granted to the national head, and that these require a different organization of the federal government a single
body being an unsafe depositary of such ample authorities.
© 2013 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History www.gilderlehrman.org
Address to the People of New York, by the Hon. John Jay
[text from http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/newnatn/usconst/johnjay.html]
Friends and Fellow-citizens: The Convention concurred in opinion with the people, that a
national
government, competent to every national object, was indispensably necessary; and it was as plain to them, as it
now is to all America, that the present Confederation does not provide for such a government. These points
being agreed, they proceeded to consider how and in what manner such a government could be formed, as, on
the one hand, should be sufficiently energetic to raise us from our prostrate and distressed situation, and, on the
other, be perfectly consistent with the liberties of the people of every state. Like men to whom the experience of
other ages and countries had taught wisdom, they not only determined that it should be erected by, and depend
on, the people, but, remembering the many instances in which governments vested solely in one man, or one
body of men, had degenerated into tyrannies, they judged it most prudent that the three great branches of power
should be committed to different hands, and therefore that the executive should be separated from the
legislative, and the judicial from both.Thus far the propriety of their work is easily seen and understood, and
therefore is thus far almost universally approved; for no one man or thing under the sun ever yet pleased every
body.
The next question was, what particular powers should be given to these three branches. Here the different views
and interests of the different states, as well as the different abstract opinions of their members on such points,
interposed many difficulties. Here the business became complicated, and presented a wide field for
investigation--too wide for every eye to take a
quick and comprehensive view of it. . . .
...The question now before us naturally leads to three inquiries:-1. Whether it is probable that a better plan can be obtained.
2. Whether, if attainable, it is likely to be in season.
3. What would be our situation if, after rejecting this, all our efforts to obtain a better should prove fruitless.
The men who formed this plan are Americans, who had long deserved and enjoyed our confidence, and who are
as much interested in having a good government as any of us are or can be.They were appointed to that business
at a time when the states had become very sensible of the derangement of our national affairs, and of the
impossibility of retrieving them under the existing Confederation. Although well persuaded that nothing but a
good national government could oppose and divert the tide of evils that was flowing in upon us, yet those
gentlemen met
in Convention with minds perfectly unprejudiced in favor of any particular plan.The minds of
their constituents were at that time equally cool and dispassionate. All agreed in the necessity
of doing
something; but no one ventured to say decidedly what precisely ought to be done.
Opinions were then fluctuating and unfixed; and whatever might have been the wishes of a few individuals, yet
while the Convention deliberated, the people remained in silent suspense. Neither wedded to favorite systems of
their own, nor influenced by popular ones abroad, the members were more desirous to receive light from, than
to impress their private sentiments on, one another.
These circumstances naturally opened the door to that spirit of candor, of calm inquiry, of mutual
accommodation, and mutual respect, which entered into the Convention with them, and regulated their debates
and proceedings. . . .
They tell us, very honestly, that this plan is the result of accommodation. They do not hold it up as the best of
all possible ones, but only as the best which they could unite in and agree to. If such men, appointed and
meeting under such auspicious circumstances, and so sincerely disposed
to conciliation, could go no farther in
their endeavors to please every state and every body, what reason have we, at present, to expect any system that
would give more general satisfaction?
Suppose this plan to be rejected; what measures would you propose for obtaining a better? Some will answer,
“Let us appoint another convention; and, as every thing has been said and written that can well be said and
written on the subject, they will be better informed than the former one was, and consequently be better able to
make and agree upon a more eligible one.” . . .
Let those who are sanguine in their expectations of a better plan from a new convention, also reflect on the
delays and risks to which it would expose us. Let them consider whether we ought, by continuing much longer
in our present humiliating condition, to give other nations further time to perfect their restrictive systems of
commerce, reconcile their own people to them, and to fence, and guard, and strengthen them by all those
regulations and contrivances in which a jealous policy is ever fruitful. Let them consider whether we ought to
give further opportunities to discord to alienate the hearts of our citizens from one another, and thereby
encourage new Cromwells
to bold exploits. Are we certain that our foreign creditors will continue patient, and
ready to proportion their forbearance to our delays? Are we sure that our distresses, dissensions, and weakness,
will neither invite hostility nor insult? If they should, how ill prepared shall we be
for defence, without union,
without government, without money, and without credit! . . .
Consider, then, how weighty and how many considerations advise and persuade the people
of America to
remain in the safe and easy path of union; to continue to move and act, as they hitherto have done, as a band of
brothers; and to have confidence in themselves and in one another; and, since all cannot see with the same eyes,
at least to give the proposed Constitution a fair trial, and to mend it as time, occasion, and experience, may
dictate. It would little become us to verify the predictions of those who ventured to prophesy that peace, instead
of blessing us with happiness and tranquillity, would serve only as the signal for factions, discord, and civil
contentions, to rage in our land, and overwhelm it with misery and distress.
Let us also be mindful that the cause of freedom greatly depends on the use we make of the singular
opportunities we enjoy of governing ourselves wisely; for, if the event should prove
that the people of this
country either cannot or will not govern themselves, who will hereafter
be advocates for systems which,
however charming in theory and prospect, are not reducible to practice? If the people of our nation, instead of
consenting to be governed by laws of their own making, and rulers of their own choosing, should let
licentiousness, disorder, and confusion, reign over them, the minds of men every where will insensibly become
alienated from republican forms, and prepared to prefer and acquiesce in governments which, though less
friendly to liberty, afford more peace and security.
Receive this address with the same candor with which it is written; and may the spirit of wisdom and patriotism
direct and distinguish your councils and your conduct.
JOHN JAY, a Citizen of NewYork.
Name: ____________________________________________________ Pd: _____
Directions: On the following paper you will answer the following questions from a Federalist opinion. These
questions are going to be due Wednesday, October 8 by the end of class, if you do not complete these
questions you cannot receive full points on your assessment.
1. How do Federalists feel about a Bill of Rights being added to the Constitution? What evidence do you
have of this?
2. How do Federalists address concerns about the “powers of government” under this new Constitution?
What evidence do you have of this?
3. Can you explain why this Constitution is in the best interests of our nation as a whole? What evidence
do you have of this?
4. What is one weakness of your side’s position? What evidence do you have of this?
Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Pd: _____
Federalist v. Anti-Federalist Debate
a.k.a. “Fighting With Quill Pens”
During the debate, fill out the following sheet. This is due at the end of the period.
1. Points the Federalist Opener made (at least 3)
2. Points the Anti-Federalist Opener made (at least 3)
3. Points the Federalist Cross-Examiner made (at least 3)
4. Points the Anti-Federalist Cross-Examiner made (at least 3)
5. Points the Federalist Rebutter made (at least 3)
6. Points the Anti-Federalist Rebutter made (at least 3)
7. Points the Federalist Summarizer made (at least 3)
8. Points the Anti-Federalist Summarizer made (at least 3)
9. Based on the arguments in class today should this class pass the Constitution? Why or why not?
DEBATE BALLOT
Debate ______________________________________________ Class _____________
Name of Evaluator ____________________________________ Date _____________
Poor
1
Fair
2
Average
3
Good
Federalist
4
Excellent
5
Anti-Federalist
6 Minute Position Presentation
Rating = ____
Comments:
Rating = ____
Comments:
***** 5 Minute Work Period *****
4 Minute Rebuttal
Rating = ____
Comments:
Rating = ____
Comments:
Continued on Reverse ---------->
***** 3 Minute Work Period *****
2 Minute Response
Rating = ____
Comments:
Rating = ____
Comments:
***** 1 Minute Work Period *****
2 Minute Position Summary
Rating = ____
[
Comments:
] Total Points
Rating = ____
[
Comments:
] Total Points
Circle Winner Below:
Federalist
Anti-Federalist