Name:_________________________
US History
Founding Fathers Structured Academic Controversy Debate
Miss Natalie
In preparation for the Structured Academic Controversy Debate we are doing this week- there are a few things you need
to know first! This worksheet is going to provide you background information on the issue of whether or not the colonists
should have supported the ‘Founding Fathers’, and an overview on how to correctly participate in the debate. DO NOT
LOSE THIS PACKET- I will not give you a new one, so I suggest leaving it in class on the shelf! This debate is a 55 point
Project/Activity score for your grade!!! It is our other unit assessment other than the Primary Source Project for this unit!
In our debate, we have the main question: Should the colonists have supported the ‘Founding Fathers’, the men who
participated in the Constitutional Congress before, during, and after the American Revolution. We know that in those
Constitutional Conventions huge decisions were made and important documents to solidify those decisions were
written: the Declaration of Independence as the formal break from England and start to the revolution, the Articles of
Confederation were written to give the new country a government structure, and eventually those Articles were
replaced with a brand new Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous primary sources in
the world, and the Constitution that these men wrote is still in use today, more than 200 years later.
The men who we call the American Founding Fathers are revered as heroes by many, but we are here to take a closer
look at their motivations and frames of references- and see if they deserve the fame they are usually bestowed. These
men represented a small section of colonial society. They were mostly wealthy white men who owned property, ran
businesses, were merchants, were lawyers, ran plantations… There were no minorities like Native Americans or African
Americans represented in these meetings, no women, and no men of poorer classes. Could these few ‘Founding
Fathers’ really make the best decisions for the good of all people in colonial society, or were they merely using the
power they had in that society to benefit themselves?
We need to think about two main questions when we debate whether the colonists should have supported the
‘Founding Fathers’:
1. Was breaking away from England with a violent revolution the right thing to do for all people in the colonies?
2. Did the ‘Founding Fathers’ represent the interests of all Americans in a fair and democratic way when they drafted
the new Constitution?
In order to debate these questions effectively, you need to learn a little more about these Constitutional Convention and
the US Constitution itself. Please read the following summaries and answer the questions at the end.
The Constitutional Convention
On May 25, 1787, 55 delegates, representing every state but Rhode Island, met at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia, which is now known
as Independence Hall. Notable delegates included George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. At first, the
convention was very secretive. No members of the press were allowed to observe, and no official journal of the proceedings were kept. In fact,
chaperones were assigned to Ben Franklin at all times, the eldest of the delegates, who had a reputation for being talkative. The chaperones assumed
the responsibility for making sure that Franklin did not publicize the details of the debates. 39 of the 55 delegates had served in the Continental
Congress, and were well aware of the restrictions placed on the national government by the Articles of Confederation. They were convinced of the need
for a stronger national government. The vast majority of delegates entered the proceedings similarly convinced by their experiences under the Articles.
The first question facing the delegates was whether to attempt to amend the Articles of Confederation or to throw out the Articles and create a new
framework of government. The decision was made early on to create a new framework embodied in a new national constitution. At this point, the
convention became known as the Constitutional Convention. Once the drafting of the Constitution had begun, it became clear that the major stumbling
block to agreement on a governmental system would be achieving a balance between the needs of large and small states.
James Madison presented the first suggested framework of government which contained a solution to this conflict of interests in the Virginia Plan. The
Virginia Plan called for a strong, unified national government rather than a loose confederation of states. The Plan gave Congress unchecked powers
of legislation and taxation, and allowed Congress to veto state laws and use military force against the states. The Plan further called for a bicameral
legislature with representation in both houses based on state population. The lower house would choose the members of the upper house from a
pool selected by the state legislatures. These houses would jointly name the president and federal judges.
The Virginia Plan met with staunch opposition, especially in regard to the scheme for representation as proportional to population. The smaller states
strongly opposed because they thought they would have no real power in a government based on the Virginia Plan. William Patterson, a delegate from
New Jersey, presented an alternative to the Virginia Plan, called the New Jersey Plan, to counter Madison's proposal. The New Jersey Plan called for a
unicameral congress in which each state would have an equal number of seats. This was the only main difference between the plans, as both
would strengthen the national government at the expense of state power.
The debate over representation resulted in a long impasse that held up the proceedings of the convention for weeks. Finally, the delegates from each
state agreed to assign one member to a "grand committee," which would decide the issue once and for all. On July 17, 1787 the committee approved
the Connecticut Compromise, which gave each state an equal vote in the upper house, and made representation in the lower house
proportional to population. The remaining debates went far more smoothly, and the decisions regarding the executive and judicial branches were fairly
unanimous. On September 17, 1787, the new Constitution was approved by the convention and sent to the states for ratification.
Adapted from: http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/statebuilding/section5.rhtml
The Constitution and a New Government
Finally approved on September 17, 1787, the Constitution laid out the framework for the new United States government. It reconciled the differences
between the states on the subject of representation, and represented, ultimately, a balance between the delegates' knowledge that the national
government had to be strengthened and their fear of tyranny. Congress was granted the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate interstate commerce,
and to conduct diplomacy as the single voice of the people in international affairs. States were thus not allowed to coin money and tax interstate
commerce, and the national government had the power to invoke military action against the states. The Constitution declared all acts and treaties made
by Congress to be binding on the states.
The Constitution set forth a government composed of 3 branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch was given certain powers
over the others to ensure that no one branch had a dangerous amount of power. This system, known as checks and balances, was the cornerstone of
the new framework of government. The system of checks and balances represented the solution to the problem of how to empower the central
government, yet protect against corruption.
The President was granted the power to veto acts of Congress deemed unnecessary or unjust, and would be responsible for appointing federal and
Supreme Court judges. The Senate had to ratify treaties proposed by the President, and had to approve the President's cabinet appointments. Congress
as a joint body was given the power to impeach, try, and remove the President from office, as well as Supreme Court justices, should it become
necessary. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, had the responsibility and power to interpret the laws passed by Congress.
The Constitution set forth a form of federalism that balanced the authority of the state and national governments. The state legislatures would elect
the members of the Senate, as well as select delegates to the Electoral College, which selected the President. Furthermore, the Constitution could be
amended by a vote in favor of amendment by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The writers of the Constitution intended to increase the power of the
national government, but they were wary of taking too much power from the states.
One debate that was resolved by the Constitution was that of whether slaves should be considered persons or property for reasons of representation.
Southern delegates argued that slaves should count toward representative seats, whereas the representatives of northern states, most of which had
already or would soon abolish slavery, argued that to count slaves as members of the population would grant an unfair advantage to the southern states.
The result of this debate was the adoption of the Three-fifths Clause, which allowed three-fifths of all slaves to be counted as people. The Constitution
further forbade any state to refuse to return run-away slaves to the states from which they came. Under the Constitution, Congress was permitted to ban
the importation of slaves after 1808, but there was no explicit mention of the framers feelings about the legality of slavery.
Once approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. As the process of ratification began, the
majority of Americans were hesitant to support the Constitution, which represented a drastic shift away from the Articles of Confederation, whose
weaknesses many common citizens had not been in a position to observe. The long process of ratification began with the entrenchment of opposing
sides. The supporters of the Constitution called themselves the Federalists, and their opponents, who supported states rights over centralized
power, were dubbed the Anti-federalists.
Adapted from: http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/statebuilding/section6.rhtml
1. Why did the Founding Fathers want to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new plan of government
for the US? (2 points)
2. Please explain the main debate over representation in the new government. Explain the Virginia Plan and the
New Jersey Plan, and how this issue was resolved. (4 points)
3. Please explain the concept of checks and balances between the 3 branches of government. Give an example
of how it worked to help! (4 points)
4. What did the Founding Fathers say about slavery in the Constitution? (4 points)
5. Please explain what the term Federalism means. (1 point)
6. Once the Constitution was written, it had to be ratified, or approved, by the states. ____________________
were people who supported the Constitution’s ratification and ____________________________ were people
who did not support its ratification. (1 point)
Participating in the Debate
You will have a partner in this debate, and your team will argue against another pair of your classmates. I will be
assigning your groups.
There are three rounds to this debate. Your team will argue BOTH SIDES of this debate, and at the end you will have the
chance to discuss what you really think. In each round try to be creative and think of the best arguments and evidence
as you can. You are working with another person so please talk it out and help each other understand the resources I
will give you. The resources will be challenging, but you can do it.
Round 1: Team 1 argues pro: YES colonists should have supported the Founding Fathers
Team 2 argues anti: NO colonists should not have supported the Founding Fathers
-Each team examines the resources I provide them and decide the 3 strongest arguments that support their
position. Each argument should have at least one strong piece of evidence to support it. Each team will take
notes of their arguments on the charts provided.
-Once both teams are done with this, discussion begins. As Team 1 explains their arguments, Team 2 will take
notes in the chart provided. Once Team 1 is done, Team 2 may ask them questions to clarify- then Team 2 will
explain and Team 1 will take notes and ask questions.
Round 2: Team 1 argues anti: NO colonists should not have supported the Founding Fathers
Team 2 argues pro: YES colonists should have supported the Founding Fathers
-repeat steps from Round 1- with new resources from Round 1- but try to use differing arguments!
Round 3: After arguing both sides of this debate, what do you really think?
- Each person in both teams will get to decide for themselves, and then discuss as a group what you have
concluded.
-Once this discussion is over, fill out the reflection questions at the end of this packet.
My partner is ________________________________ and we are TEAM __________.
The other group we are working with is ___________________and ___________________and they are TEAM ______.
ROUND 1(12 points)
TEAM 1: PRO FOUNDING FATHERS
TEAM 2: ANTI FOUNDING FATHERS
Argument 1:
Argument 1:
Evidence:
Evidence:
Argument 2:
Argument 2:
Evidence:
Evidence:
Argument 3:
Argument 3:
Evidence:
Evidence:
ROUND 2 (12 points)
TEAM 1: ANTI FOUNDING FATHERS
TEAM 2: PRO FOUNDING FATHERS
Argument 1:
Argument 1:
Evidence:
Evidence:
Argument 2:
Argument 2:
Evidence:
Evidence:
Argument 3:
Argument 3:
Evidence:
Evidence:
ROUND 3: Please explain your true opinion on this debate on an extra sheet of paper that you will staple to this
packet. Explain your 3 strongest arguments in favor or opposing the Founding Fathers, and please use evidence to
back your claims! (10 points)
After explaining your opinion, please answer the following reflection questions on that same paper. (5 points)
1. What went well with this debate?
2. What could be improved for the next time we do a debate like this?
3. Please rate your own and your partner’s participation and behavior during this activity on scale from 1-5 (5 is best).
4. What was the hardest thing about this activity?
5. What was the best thing about this activity?