4 3 2 1 Description Scale Students are able to: Learning Goal: 2 TSW understand significant documents, key individuals and early political development of the new American nation. Scale Description 4 Students are able to: Decide which (from each category) was the most significant to the development of the new American nation. 3 Describe significant documents, key individuals and early political development of the new American nation. 2 Identify significant documents, key individuals and early political development of the new American nation. 1 With help students are able to: Identify a few significant documents, key individuals and early political development of the new American nation. With help students still struggle to: Identify any significant documents, key individuals and early political development of the new American nation. * Declaration of Independence * Articles of Confederation * Constitutional Convention * Federalists * Anti-Federalists * Great Compromise * New Jersey Plan * Virginia Plan * Three-Fifths Compromise

Federalist versus Anti-Federalist The Debate over the Bill of Rights Objective - Be able to explain the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists arguments. Tell them first that we will be debating this Wednesday. You need to know both sides backwards and forwards as you do not know which side you will be getting. So PAY ATTENTION!!!

Put it to a Vote The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states before it could become law The plan for ratification was written in Article 7 of the Constitution Supporters tried to get the Constitution ratified quickly so that critics would not have time to organize The convention is finished, it has been drawn up, but another obstacle still remains…

Federalists versus Anti-Federalists Federalists were people who supported the Constitution Anti-Federalists were people who fought against the Constitution The debates between these two groups would last 10 months It was an intense and sometimes bitter political struggle Hint Hint on first two bullet points. This turned friends into enemies and was debated everywhere.

The Federalist Cause Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were leaders of the Federalist arguments They wrote a series of articles in support of the Constitution for a New York newspaper These articles are now called the Federalist Papers Hint Hint on the federalist papers.

The Anti-Federalist Cause Anti-Federalist leaders included George Mason, Edmund Randolph, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry Many of these men had attended the Constitutional Convention, but refused to sign the document Patrick Henry became the leading voice in opposition to a strong national government May want to point out that you see leaders on both sides of the issue that all fought for independence, but now disagree on what makes a good govt. Colonel George Mason said he would sooner chop off his right hand then sign this constitution as it is. Gives you an idea of how heated this issue is.

3 Basic Questions Most of the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had to do with 3 basic questions: 1. Whether the new Constitution would maintain a republican form of government 2. Whether the national government would have too much power 3. Whether a Bill of Rights was needed in the Constitution

On Republican Government Anti-federalists argued: Republican governments can only work in small communities. The new nation was so large and diverse that people would not be able to agree on what is best for their common welfare. Federalists argued: A large republic, with checks and balances, would be better than a small republic. In small republics, special interests are everywhere. In a large republic, it would be much harder for special interests to violate the common welfare. Go to map and point out that anti-feds said that the republican form of govt would work in a state. But said that it wouldn’t work in a large country because of the diversity, no one would agree on what is best for common welfare, as everyone has different take on it. Federalists on other hand, state the exact opposite, because in a small republic special interests could gain a foothold, and in a large one they could not because of checks and balances. Turn to your basegroup, who is right?

On the fear of tyranny… Anti-federalists argued: The national government would be located too far from most people’s communities to allow them to participate. The result would be tyranny. Federalists argued: The national government would gain the loyalty and support of the people. It could not become a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it by the system of checks and balances and separation of powers Anti-feds – Use map, point out AZ, not a player then, but now we are about as far as you can get from national govt, and if you think about back then they didn’t have cars, planes, or fast communication/transportation. They would argue in a national form of govt you are too far away, and it would become a tyrrany. Feds – they come back and say not so fast slick. They argue that it would gain the loyalty and support of people, and because of seperation of powers and checks and balances, would not become too powerful. Jolly Rancher question – Who came up with separation of powers and checks and balances? Montesqieu Who is right?

On the Power of the National Government Anti-federalists argued: The national government would have too much power at the expense of the state governments. The supremacy clause means that all the national government’s laws are superior to state’s laws. Federalists argued: It is true that the national government would have more power, but its powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation (trade, currency, and defense). The Constitution provides adequate protections to the state governments. Anti – Worried that you would be giving the national govt too much power. Feds – Yes, they are gettting more power, but they are limited to things that face the whole nation. Trade, currency, and defense. Obviously AZ cannot declare war but the nation can. Who is right?

On a Bill of Rights Anti-federalists argued: The Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights which is essential to protect individuals against the power of the national government. Federalists argued: A Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the powers of the government are limited. A Bill of Rights could give the impression that the people could only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed. This is probably the most controversial one. Anti – Say they will not sign a constitution if it has no bill of rights to protect people. George Mason said at the convention “I would sooner chop off my right hand then to put it to this Constitution without a Bill of Rights” Feds – Argue that it is not needed because the powers of govt are limited, also if you list the rights people have they will assume that those are the only rights they will have. Who is right?

The agreement to add a Bill of Rights A compromise was reached on the issue of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists made this compromise to get enough support for the Constitution to be ratified. The addition of a Bill of Rights was a victory for the Anti-federalists. It was an important addition and has been protecting the basic rights of American people ever since. Victory for the anti because they get bill of rights, and victory for feds because they get constitution. The Bill of Rights has been protecting people ever since, and you can thank Colonel George Mason, for saying he would chop off his right hand…