Lessons on the American Founding: the Creation and Ratification of the American Constitution

Lessons on the American Founding: The Creation and Ratification of the American Constitution Timothy D. Moore and John P. Kaminski Center for the Study of the American Constitution University of Wisconsin-Madison 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Part One–The Constitutional Convention Lesson One: Delegate Instructions to the Federal Convention 4 Lesson Two: Comparing Three Plans at the Federal Convention 13 Lesson Three: Assessing the Convention and Delegates 26 Part Two–The Ratification Period Lesson Four: The Debate over the Nature of Republican Government 43 Lesson Five: The Debate over the Three Branches of Government 49 Lesson Six: The Debate over a Bill of Rights 61 Lesson Seven: The Issue of Religious Liberty during Ratification 67 Lesson Eight: The Use of Visual Symbols during Ratification 78 Lesson Nine: The Use of Metaphors during Ratification 88 Lesson Ten: Political Humor during Ratification 97 Lesson Eleven: The Processes of Amending or Adopting a Constitution 111 Lesson Twelve: The Process of Ratification: A Case Study of Four States 117 Part Three–Additional Resources 129 2 INTRODUCTION The Importance of Using Primary Sources in the Social Studies Classroom Over the years many publications have appeared to assist teachers seeking to use primary source materials in their classrooms. Most notably, a publication in 2003 done by The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) was Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives. When explaining the rationale for each selection, it was suggested that each document had “helped shape the national character, and they reflect our diversity, our unity, and our commitment as a nation to continue our work toward forming a more perfect union.” As with any such effort, there was broad consensus regarding the selection as well as some debate over documents not selected. Few teachers would suggest that the efforts of NARA were inconsequential or irrelevant. Americans have always been committed to the written word. Public conversation about the “canon of American identity” has always been, and will continue to be an important component of this debate. But, ironically, many teachers of American history still face questions from the public and educators as to the value of using primary sources. Many of these are often couched within a misconception as to what the task is when a student studies history. If the task is simple memorization and regurgitation of facts, primary source materials would not figure prominently in a classroom. If, however, the historical method consists of something more akin to inquiry and interpretation, the study of primary sources becomes paramount. We are decidedly of the latter opinion. Perhaps the easiest rationale for using primary sources is that they serve as the building blocks for historical inquiry. In science classrooms, students experiment with chemicals in chemistry, test rocks in geology, dissect frogs in biology, and analyze plants in botany. All of these pedagogical approaches are active and without this method, students could not claim an understanding of the subject at hand. A chemist that simply memorized the periodic table without experimenting with the actual elements could not legitimately claim to be a chemist. A student that could identify the planets on a chart without scanning the heavens through a telescope should not be considered a well-trained astronomer. None of us would take our cars to a mechanic who had simply looked at illustrations in repair manuals. We want experts with hands on experience. We should expect nothing less when it comes to teaching history. But there are significant challenges as teachers use primary sources in the classroom. The challenges for students are often issues of reading and understanding arcane language. Language evolves and few students can easily navigate through texts that are filled with words foreign to their modern ears. Frankly, many of us would have to admit to scrambling for a dictionary when we first read Magna Charta. Perhaps an even greater challenge is one of relevancy. George Bernard Shaw lamented “youth was wasted on the young.” Many history teachers would modify Shaw’s lament to something akin to “instruction of history is wasted on the young.” Studying history is never an easy sell to adolescents who sincerely believe nothing of importance happened before their birth and predictably ask, “Why is this important?” Add to these, a trend to rid the classroom of the printed word, where the careful reading of any text, let alone “old texts,” poses an increasing set of difficulties for teachers. If we as teachers of history cannot address these concerns, we are indeed doomed to the dustbin of irrelevancy. The continuous cycle of debate over educational standards presents teachers with additional challenges. Those who advocate a content-based approach to standards are essentially locked into endless disputes regarding what might constitute the “essential core” of what students need to know. More recent developments that stress documentary analysis of texts can also create problems 3 for instructors. While offering greater flexibility for teachers in their content selections, instructors may find it an overwhelming task when making selections that are best utilized in this approach that emphasizes historical thinking skills. If one wanted to read the entirety of the primary sources of the Founding Period, the twenty-six volumes of The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution would be where one would find a mountain of written material. Since few have time to venture into such a mammoth undertaking, other smaller documentary editions have been published. Each seeks to “distill” the best material for students of the ratification debates. The present effort follows in that tradition; it seeks to present original sources in an accessible format to a wider audience in a variety of lessons related to the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debate that followed. In this work, we offer what we believe to be an essential core of content, and we offer some essential questions that frame the way students should think historically as they engage with these selections. Nine Rationales for Using Primary Sources in the Social Studies Classroom 1. Primary sources provide firsthand evidence of historical events. This often injects a “realistic” component into historical instruction. 2. Primary sources when used optimally force students to use critical and interpretive thinking skills. 3. Primary sources challenge student preconceived ideas about past events, people, and historic topics. 4. Students must make inferences and deal with personal bias and points of view when using primary sources. This is at the core of teaching literacy. 6. Many national and state standards are framed around the use and analysis of primary sources. 7. Students quickly realize that information is highly subjective. This can have a large effect on how students perceive information as evidence. 8. Primary sources foster the process of students “doing history.” This mirrors the process that historians follow when they debate, discuss, and interpret. 9. Students will learn to challenge assumptions and conclusions, both their own as well as their instructors. 4 Lesson One: Delegate Instructions to the Federal Convention BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR INSTRUCTOR The Calling of the Constitutional Convention The idea of a constitutional convention stemmed from the debate over the creation of state governments in 1776. In several states citizens argued that the revolutionary bodies that had taken the place of the colonial governments could not write constitutions. They insisted that only conventions elected for the purpose could do so and that the constitutions could not go into effect until they had been approved by the people. As a result, the first constitutions of some of the states, including Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were written by constitutional conventions. The idea that a constitutional convention could be the means of creating a central government for the United States was gaining support throughout the 1780s. For a time after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in March 1781, the proponents of a powerful central government tried to increase the power of Congress under the Articles. In the summer of 1782 both houses of the New York legislature adopted resolutions on the deplorable “state of the nation,” particularly in financial matters, and requested Congress to call “a general convention of the states, specially authorized to revise and amend the Confederation, reserving a right to the respective [state] legislatures, to ratify their determinations.” Congress submitted the proposal to various committees between August 1782 and the middle of 1783, but by then the opponents of a strong central government were regaining control of Congress. The final result was a committee report that suggested further consideration of a convention be dropped. By the end of 1783 the supporters of a strong central government—a “national” government—were becoming convinced that they could never achieve their goal under the rules prescribed by the Articles of Confederation. Therefore they turned increasingly to the idea of a constitutional convention, an idea expressed in newspapers, pamphlets, and private letters. A conference to address interstate commercial issues convened at George Washington's home, Mount Vernon, Virginia, in March 1785. The delegates from Maryland and Virginia issued a report known as the Compact of 1785 that was ratified later by both state legislatures, and became the earliest move of individual states toward closer union under the Articles of Confederation. All proposals for a full continental convention came to naught until 21 January 1786 when the Virginia legislature elected eight commissioners to meet with delegates from other states to consider the problems of trade and to consider the preparation of an act to give Congress power to regulate trade. The proposed convention would meet at Annapolis, Maryland on the first Monday in September 1786. Some men, particularly New Englanders, suspected the motives behind the call.

Load more