Unit 3: Constitution and Ratification Scaffolded Assignment Sheet and Document Set
What were the principles of the new Constitution and how did they shape the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate?
Instructions
Read and analyze each document in the set. Use the vocabulary to support your understanding and/or take notes on a piece of paper as you read. Then, use the graphic organizer to plan your response to the question. The graphic organizer has more information and support to understand the task.
In your response you should:
- Respond to the prompt with a defensible thesis that establishes a line of reasoning.
- Analyze the sources (documents) using the VIEW technique.
DBQ Question:
| What were the principles of the new Constitution and how did they shape the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate? |
Documents
Document A: Brutus I by Robert Yates (1787)
| “In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The people, in general, would be acquainted with very few of their rulers. The elections in so large a republic will be managed by few men, meeting together and agreeing upon the candidates whom they please, and they will, by such means, always elect those who will be subservient to their views. This will be the case in a large republic; but in a small one, the interest of the public will be more readily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses of power could be examined with more ease and be corrected sooner.” |
aggrandizing: increasing power, wealth or status
acquainted: familiar with
subservient: obedient, submissive, obey without questioning |
| Analysis Questions:
1. Why does the author believe people in a large republic will not know their rulers well?
2. In what ways does the author suggest that smaller governments are better at protecting liberty?
|
|
Document B: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (1787)
| First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly & without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal & unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land & not by the law of Nations.
To say, as Mr. Wilson does, that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given, while in the particular ones all is given which is not reserved, might do for the Audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely a gratis dictum… . . . Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse or rest on inference. . . . |
omission: lack of including
sophisms: an argument used to deceive
unremitting: never relaxing habeas corpus laws: laws that keep people from being held in prison without a trial
Mr. Wilson: James Wilson, a Federalist that argued against the need for a bill of rights
gratis dictum: an opinion |
| Analysis Questions:
1. What key protections does Jefferson list as missing from the proposed Constitution?
2. In what ways does Jefferson imply that written protections are necessary for preserving republican principles?
|
|
Document C: Constitution Preamble (1787)
| We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. |
Posterity: generations to come ordain: create officially |
| Analysis Questions:
1. According to the Preamble, who is establishing the Constitution?
2. How does the Preamble balance the needs of individuals with the needs of the nation?
|
|
Document D: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (1788)
| What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution.
1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.
2. Altho’ it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community.
Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard agst. it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side.
|
acquire by degrees: gained over time maxims: truths
national sentiment: feelings of the people
usurped: taken illegally or by force
latter: Referring to the second thing listed. In this case, “usurped acts of the Government.”
subversion of liberty: act of undermining or destroying freedom agst: against precaution: done to prevent harm or danger |
| Analysis Questions:
1. What are the two main reasons Madison gives for supporting a Bill of Rights, even in a popular government?
2. Why might Madison have believed that declaring rights publicly would help restrain “interest and passion” |
|
Document E: Federalist #51 James Madison (1788)
| “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. 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.”
|
Ambition: strong desire to achieve
counteract: to act against
oblige: to make (someone or something) act |
| Analysis Questions:
1. What are the two tasks a government must be able to do, according to the excerpt? 2. In what ways does this quote support the principle of limited government?
|
|