Primary Document Lesson

Essential Questions:
What is government and what should it do?

How can citizens and groups participate effectively in the democratic process?


The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The country, having just come out of a war with Britain, felt they had to stay clear of any strong central government. Only one branch of government was created. The fear of electing one person to lead the country and thus placing too much power in their hands, lead to the weakness and eventual failure of this first attempt at democracy.
Under the Articles, each state was guaranteed one vote regardless of population. This lead to a bulky and lethargic Congress which often bickered over Sectional differences and rarely could come to a compromise. The overwhelming problem facing the Articles was its inability to levy taxes. Congress could declare war, but could not pay the soldiers. Congress could establish a post office, but could not adequately fund it. And Congress could make treaties with other countries, but were not respected internationally because our young country could not pay back debt accrued during the Revolutionary War. Congress was only able to ask for donations to raise money, but states were not obligated to contribute. Courts were maintained by each state and other states had to adhere to the rulings of other states. Any revisions to the articles of confederation required approval from all thirteen states which usually proved difficult.
Few instances give a better example of the weaknesses of the Articles than Shay’s rebellion. After several Massachusetts farmers lost their farms to debt and bad credit, they stormed several federal buildings.
With so many problems in this first attempt at democracy, it was inevitable that opposition would arise. Two distinct groups would emerge; The Federalists and Anti Federalists. To examine the views of each of these groups we will look at documents from James Madison, a Federalist, and Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist. No two people embody the two sides better than Madison and Henry. Madison, an intellectual from Virginia, was firm believer in the intellectual human nature and its ability to govern itself. He felt that humans, if given the chance, would do what is right and preserve liberty.
Henry, on the other hand, was a staunch critic of the Constitution. He felt that it gave the government too much power and would eventually lead to the same conditions those who left England found to be so intolerable.
The lesson will be structured so that half of the class will read the article by Henry and the other half will read the article by Madison. Students will receive the attached sheet and when each side is done the students will pair and share the information to fill in the blanks.
The first order document (Articles) would be discussed in the class prior. Students will need to look at articles 2, 8 and 9(section 6) prior to the class. Students should also have prior background knowledge of the sectional differences developing with in the country, as well as events that expose the weaknesses of the Articles. This lesson will end with again asking the essential questions posed at the beginning of the lesson. Students will be asked what they thought these two individuals were thinking the role of government should be and how individuals can play a role in its development.


First-Order Document
Articles of Confederation- Articles 2, 8 and 9(section 6)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=127

Second-Order Documents
Patrick Henry- June 5, 1788, Virginia Ratifying Convention
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=964-
The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England? A compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland? An association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.
The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government.
But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny


James Madison- June 5 &6 1788 Virginia Convention http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_06.htm
The honorable member then told us that there was no instance of power once transferred being voluntarily renounced. Not to produce European examples, which may probably be done before the rising of this Convention, have we not seen already, in seven states, (and probably in an eighth state,) legislatures surrendering some of the most important powers they possessed? But, sir, by this government, powers are not given to any particular set of men; they are in the hands of the people; delegated to their representatives chosen for short terms; to representatives responsible to the people, and whose situation is perfectly similar to their own. As long as this is the case we have no danger to apprehend. When the gentleman called our recollection to the usual effects of the concession of powers, and imputed the loss of liberty generally to open tyranny, I wish he had gone on farther. Upon his review of history, he would have found that the loss of liberty very often resulted from factions and divisions; from local considerations, which eternally lead to quarrels; he would have found internal dissensions to have more frequently demolished civil liberty, than a tenacious disposition in rulers to retain any stipulated powers.
But suppose a foreign nation to declare war against the United States; must not the general legislature have the power of defending the United States? Ought it to be known to foreign nations that the general government of the United States of America has no power to raise and support an army, even in the utmost danger, when attacked by external enemies? Would not their knowledge of such a circumstance stimulate them to fall upon us?
Let us consider the most important of these reprobated powers; that of direct taxation is most generally objected to. With respect to the exigencies of government, there is no question but the most easy mode of providing for them will be adopted. When, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to. It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people. To consult the conveniences of the people will cost them nothing, and in many respects will be advantageous to them. Direct taxes will only be recurred to for great purposes. What has brought on other nations those immense debts, under the pressure of which many of them labor? Not the expenses of their governments, but war. If this country should be engaged in war, — and I conceive we ought to provide for the possibility of such a case, — how would it be carried on?
What has brought on other nations those immense debts, under the pressure of which many of them labor? Not the expenses of their governments, but war. If this country should be engaged in war, — and I conceive we ought to provide for the possibility of such a case, — how would it be carried on? By the usual means provided from year to year? As our imports will be necessary for the expenses of government and other common exigencies, how are we to carry on the means of defence? How is it possible a war could be supported without money or credit? And would it be possible for a government to have credit without having the power of raising money?
If we take experience for our guide, we shall find still more instructive direction on this subject. The weakness of the existing articles of the Union showed itself during the war. It has manifested itself, since the peace, to such a degree as admits of no doubt, to a rational, intelligent, and unbiased mind, of the necessity of alteration
I agree with the honorable gentleman (Mr. Henry) that national splendor and glory are not our objects; but does he distinguish between what will render us secure and happy at home, and what will render us respectable abroad? If we be free and happy at home, we shall be respectable abroad.
The Confederation is so notoriously feeble, that foreign nations are unwilling to form any treaties with us; they are apprized that our general government cannot perform any of its engagements, but that they may be violated at pleasure by any of the states.

Third-Order Documents
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1586 Letter to Thomas Jefferson from John Jay

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=73 Anti-Federalist Papers


http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=71 Federalist
Papers

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=156 – Federalist documents

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1589 Letter to Elbridge Gerry by Rufus King

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1934&chapter=118609&layout=html James Madison to Edmund Randolph- scroll to the end of the document.

Activity
1. Identify the Document
Author(s) or Source__________________________________________________
Title______________________________________________________________
Date______________________________________________________________
Type of Document__________________________________________________

2. Analyze the Document
Main Idea of the document____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Relationship to other documents (How does the content relate to the 1st – 2nd-
and/or 3rd –order documents?) _________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Preceding conditions that motivated the author____________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Intended audience and purpose ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Biases of the author _________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Questions to ask the author ___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

3. Historical Content
Local/Regional: people, events, and ideas of the time _______________________
__________________________________________________________________
National: people, events and ideas of the time ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________
World: people, events, and ideas of the time ______________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusions about local/regional, national and world context at the time________
__________________________________________________________________

I love this class!!!!