Middle School Civics - Article

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists, Upfront Scholastic Magazine, New York Times

Prepared by: The New Jersey Center for Civic Education, Rutgers University

Grade Level: 6-8

Objectives: Students will be able to

• Identify the major arguments made by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the debate over ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
• Compare and contrast Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on the power of the national government, individual rights, and the role of the states.
• Explain why Anti-Federalists believed a Bill of Rights was necessary.
• Describe how Federalist arguments supported the creation of a stronger national government.
• Analyze primary-source arguments from Federalists and Anti-Federalists and identify evidence used to support each position.
• Evaluate how the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists influenced the final Constitution and the addition of the Bill of Rights.
• Develop and defend a position on which side presented the stronger argument, using evidence from historical sources.
• Explain the need for and value of compromise.
• Analyze the relevance of Anti-Federalist concerns today.

New Jersey Student Learning Standards for Studies Standards (2020):

• 6.1.8.CivicsPD.3.a: Cite evidence to determine the role that compromise played in the creation and adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
• 6.1.8.HistoryCC.3.d: Compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution in terms of the decision-making powers of national government.
• 6.3.8.CivicsPR.5: Engage in simulated democratic processes (e.g., legislative hearings, judicial proceedings, elections) to understand how conflicting points of view are addressed in a democratic society.

Background:

The Antifederalists (George Mason, Edmund Randolph, Elbridge Gerry, also John Hancock, Sam Adams and Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry) were mistrustful of government, especially strong national government. They argued that:

• A representative government could work only in a small community of citizens with similar interests and beliefs. The national government would be too far away from most of its citizens. (Aristotle)
• In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected. (Montesquieu)
• History furnishes no example of a free republic, anything like the extent of the United States.
• The proposed Constitution gives an enormous amount of power to the central government, especially the power to lay and collect taxes.
• The proposed Constitution vests so much power in the central government that it will entirely annihilate all the state governments and reduce the country to one single government. The supremacy clause will be used to destroy state governments.
• The supremacy and necessary and proper clauses give Congress broad and unchecked authority over state laws and bills of rights.
• The Executive branch would soon become a monarchy.
• The Constitution does not include a Bill or Rights to protect the people against the power of the federal government.

Additional perspective on the Anti-Federalists is provided on this video link: The Anti-Federalists - The Center for Civic Education

The Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay) supported a strong central government and supported ratifying the Constitution. They argued that:

• The Constitution creates a national government with powers needed to address national problems that states cannot solve.
• The Constitution protects state governments by reserving certain powers for them.
• The necessary and proper clause enables the federal government to adapt to circumstances in order to do the things it’s responsible for doing.
• A Bill of Rights is not needed as the Constitution does not give the government the power to deprive people of their rights.

In Federalist 10 (written by Madison) they argued that:

• Factions (interest groups) posed the greatest danger to a democratic government. But in a large country there would be many different factions and none would be able to command a majority.
• Diffused power through federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances would promote republican government and prevent too much power from being accumulated by any one person or faction.
• Aggregate interests would be referred to the national government but local and particular issues would remain for the States to determine.

Additional perspective on Federalists is provided on this video link: The Federalists - The Center for Civic Education

Activity 1: Card Sort

We the People; The Citizen and the Constitution, Level 1, 4th Edition

After lecturing and/or having students read about the views of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, cut up the cards in Handout One (The right side are the Anti-Federalists views, the left side the Federalists view) and hand them out to your students. Ask them to match the cards to Federalist and Anti-federalist views.

Activity 2: Debate about ratifying the Constitution

Set up rules regarding the amount of time for each side to debate about the ratification of the Constitution. The debate would rest primarily on three issues:

• Would the Constitution maintain republican government?
• Would the national government have too much power?
• Was a Bill of Rights needed?

Have students play the roles of the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay) and Anti-Federalists (George Mason, Edmund Randolph, Elbridge Gerry). Use the graphic organizer attached as Handout Two to organize and prepare and then orally debate the three questions about whether the Constitution should be ratified.

Activity 3: Adding the Bill of Rights and the importance of compromise- Critical Thinking Activity

Nine states were needed for the Constitution to be ratified. The Federalists agreed to add a bill of rights in order to gain enough support for the Constitution to be ratified. They agreed that the first Congress would draft a bill of rights. Although this was a victory for the Anti-Federalists, it was Representative James Madison who, at the first congress on June 8, 1789, introduced a series of proposed amendments to the newly ratified U.S. Constitution.
Critical Thinking Activity: Do you think this was a good compromise?

Have a class discussion about whether Madison made a good compromise. The following bullet points provide an important perspective on compromise and should be incorporated into the discussion in order to evaluate the question of whether it was a good compromise.

• What is a compromise?
  • A compromise is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
  • Sometimes the word is used as a verb to indicate that someone has settled for less than he should have. This has added a bad connotation to the word, when in most cases, “compromise” is the way to get to a result that can be agreed upon. As long as you are not giving up important values, such as honesty, or agreeing to something that you cannot live with, compromise is positive.
• When is a compromise necessary?
  • When parties have differing interests or viewpoints but want or need to come to an agreement.
• What is the value of compromise in a democratic government?
  • A democratic government is based on elected representatives deliberating, deciding and being responsible for and to the public. Competing interests and viewpoints are expressed in the deliberations and often compromises are necessary in the decisions. Without compromises, a democratic government cannot function.
• Do you think that Madison made a good compromise in agreeing to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution?
  • Yes, by this compromise he was able to get enough support for ratification of the Constitution without giving up any important value, such as a strong central government.

Activity 4: Do we still see the concerns expressed by the Anti-Federalists today?

Assessment: Have students write a short essay taking a position about whether any of the concerns expressed by the Anti-Federalists are still relevant today and explain which and why.

Essays should include reference to continuing concerns about the power of the central government and weakening of the power of the states. The following article from the Bill of Rights Institute can help provide some perspective on the relevance of Anti-Federalist concerns today. What the Anti-Federalists were for - The Bill of Rights Institute

Handout One: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Card Sort

Source: The Center for Civic Education

Handout Two: Debate

Source: We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, Level 2, third ed., Center for Civic Education, 2017.