DBQ Should the Constitution be Ratified? Document A: Massachusetts Yeomen
Oppose the “Aristocratickal”
Constitution
Introduction
In Massachusetts, not everyone supported the new U.S. Constitution.
Farmers from the western part of the state, such as the “yeomen” who
signed this letter published in the Massachusetts Gazette in January,
1788, were suspicious of it. They believed that the new document would
centralize the power of the government into the hands of the wealthy.
Nevertheless, Massachusetts ratified the Constitution on February 7,
1788.
Primary Source
“All Men Are Born Free and Equal,” The Massachusetts
Gazette, Vol.7, No. 403, Boston, January 25, 1788.
‘…[T]hey [supporters of the Constitution] tell us, that the
constitution must be good, from the characters which composed
the Convention that framed it. It is graced with the names of a
Washington and a Franklin. Illustrious names, we allow—worthy
characters in civil society. Yet we cannot suppose them, to be
infallible [perfect, dependable] guides, neither yet that a man must
necessarily incur guilt to himself merely by dissenting from them in
opinion.
We do not wish to tire the publick, but would hint to those
gentlemen, who would rob the people of their liberties, that their
sophistry [misleading argument] is not like to produce the effect.
We are willing to have a federal constitution. We are willing another
trial should be made; this may be done without derogating [taking
authority] from the gentlemen, who composed the late convention.
In framing a constitution for this commonwealth, two trials were
made before one would stick. We are willing to relinquish so much,
as to have a firm, energetick [energetic] government, and this we
are sensible may be done, without becoming slaves, to the
capricious [unpredictable, whimsical] fancies of any sett of men
whatever. It is argued, that there is no danger that the proposed
rulers will be disposed to exercise any powers that this constitution
puts into their hands, which may enable them to deprive the people
of their liberties. But in case, say they, they should make such
attempts, the people may, and will rise to arms and prevent it; in
answer to which, we have only to say, we have had enough of
fighting in the late war, and think it more eligible, to keep our
liberties in our own hands…’
One concern of the authors over the new Constitution is the possibility
that
A. the leaders will rob people of their freedom.
B. the people will no longer be able elect their officials.
C. the United States will be forced to fight another war of independence.
D.the new government will force states to obey the Constitution.
Which statement best describes the authors’ point of view regarding a
federal government?
A. They are willing to have a federal government if the Constitution
guarantees individual liberties.
B. They are unwilling to have a federal government under any
circumstances.
C. They are unwilling to have a federal government unless it is backed
by respected leaders.
D. They are willing to have a federal government if it is strengthened by
the Constitution.
Based on this excerpt, what is the authors’ frame of reference? Use
details from the excerpt to support your answer.
Document B: Why Ratifying the
Constitution Was Important
Introduction
James Madison was clearly one of the most important figures at the
Constitutional Convention; his Virginia Plan was in large part the core of
the document. Collaborating with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay,
Madison wrote a series of essays that appeared in newspapers during
1787–1788 stating why ratifying the Constitution was important for the
nation. Essay #10 is considered to be one of the most important all the
essays and is one of the most famous.
Primary Source
Federalist No. 10, published November 22, 1787
“AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well
constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately
developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of
faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so
much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he
contemplates their propensity [tendency] to this dangerous
vice...The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the
public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under
which popular governments have everywhere perished...
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting
to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and
actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,
adversed to the rights of other citizens...
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one,
by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction:
the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence;
the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same
passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it
was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,
an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less
folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it
nourishes faction...”
According to Madison, what would be one benefit of adopting the
Constitution?
A.The Constitution would not allow factions to exist.
B.The Constitution would stop the corruption of the current Federal
Government.
C. The Constitution would prevent rival political parties from threatening
to overthrow the government.
D. The Constitution would allow factions to exist but not disrupt the
government.
Why does Madison believe that "the first remedy" to stop factions is
"worse than the disease"?
A. Factions cannot survive when there is no conflict.
B. People would be free to think for themselves about government.
C. Destroying liberty is worse than destroying factions.
D. Citizens would not feel threatened by the possibility of losing their
freedom.
According to Madison, what is the problem with factions?
Document C: Speech by Jonathan
Smith
Introduction
On January 9, 1788, Massachusetts began deliberations over whether
to ratify the new Constitution of the United States. One of the most
eloquent speeches came from a farmer and delegate to the convention,
Jonathan Smith. Smith states why the ratification of the Constitution is
necessary for the new nation.
Primary Source
Speech from Jonathan Smith, Massachusetts farmer, 1788
“I am a plain man, and get my living by the plough...I have lived in
a part of the country where I have known the worth of good
government by the want of it. There was a black cloud [Shays’
Rebellion] that rose in the east last winter, and spread over the
west...It brought on a state of anarchy and that led to tyranny. I
say, it brought anarchy. People that used to live peaceably, and
were before good neighbors, got distracted, and took up arms
against government...
Our distress was so great that we should have been glad to snatch
at anything that looked like a government. Had any person that
was able to protect us come and set up his standard, we should all
have flocked to it, even if it had been a monarch, and that monarch
might have proved a tyrant...
Now, Mr. President, when I saw this Constitution, I found that it
was a cure for these disorders. It was just such a thing as we
wanted. I got a copy of it and read it over and over. I had been a
member of the convention to form our own state constitution, and
had learnt something of the checks and balances of power; and I
found them all here. I did not go to any lawyer, to ask his
opinion—we have no lawyer in our town, and do well enough
without. I formed my own opinion, and was pleased with this
Constitution…
But I don’t think the worse of the Constitution because lawyers,
and men of learning and moneyed men are fond of it. I don’t
suspect that they want to get into Congress and abuse their
power. I am not such a jealous make. They that are honest men
themselves are not apt to suspect other people…"
What is the significance of Smith's discussion about Shays' Rebellion to
his audience?
A. to show how important it was for people to avoid living under a
government of tyranny
B. to describe how the events of the rebellion impacted his own life
C. to point out that there are alternatives when people do not like their
government
D. to remind people what happens with a weak government
Why did Smith mention the idea of checks and balances to explain his
support for the Constitution?
A. to point out that under its laws, the government would never become
too powerful
B. to describe why checks and balances are less desirable for a
government
C. to illustrate how a state constitution is different from a federal
constitution
D. to demonstrate how the system of checks and balance works
What evidence does Smith cite to support his point of view?
Document D: Speech by Amos
Singletary
Introduction
Speaking after Jonathan Smith was another delegate to the
Massachusetts convention. Amos Singletary was also, like Smith, a
farmer. However, unlike Smith, Singletary had a very different opinion of
the proposed constitution. In an equally stirring speech, Singletary laid
out his views on the proposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Primary Source
Speech by Amos Singletary at Massachusetts convention
on ratification of the Constitution, 1788
“...I should not have troubled the Convention again, if some
gentlemen had not called on them that were on the stage in the
beginning of our troubles, in the year 1775. I was one of them. I
have had the honor to be a member of the court all the time, Mr.
President, and I say that, if anybody had proposed such a
constitution as this in that day, it would have been thrown away at
once. It would not have been looked at. We contended with Great
Britain—some said for a three-penny duty on tea, but it was not
that. It was because they claimed a right to tax us and bind us in all
cases whatever. And does not this Constitution do the same? Does
it not take away all we have—all our property? Does it not lay all
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises? And what more have we to
give?
They tell us Congress won’t lay dry [direct] taxes upon us, but
collect all the money they want by impost [import duties]. I say,
there has always been a difficulty about impost...They won't be
able to raise money enough by impost, and then they will lay it on
the land and take all we have got.
These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk
so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor
illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress
themselves. They expect to be the managers of this Constitution,
and get all the power and all the money into their own hands. And
then they will swallow up all of us little folks, like the great
Leviathan [Biblical sea monster], Mr. President; yes, just as the
whale swallowed up Jonah. This is what I am afraid of...”
Why did Singletary bring up the Revolutionary War to his audience?
A. to show that he served in the army and was loyal to the cause of
freedom
B. to draw a comparison between the new government leaders and the
British
C. to explain why the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights
D. to describe the importance of the war to American history
What is one reason why Singletary distrusts supporters of the
Constitution?
A.
B.
C.
D.
They never fought in the war.
They are interested only in themselves.
They deny many citizens from participating in government.
They are educated and wealthy.
What is Singletary’s frame of reference? What is his point of view?
Document E: Letter V by “Cato”
Introduction
“Cato” is believed to have been the pen name used by one of the
leading Anti-Federalists, George Clinton of New York, who became the
State's first elected governor. The name was chosen in honor of the
Roman defender of republican virtue and liberty. In this particular letter,
Cato describes what he believes are the dangerous shortcomings of the
proposed executive and legislative branches of the new government.
Primary Source
Letter V by “Cato,” The New York Journal, November 22,
1787
“…[T]he great powers of the President, connected with his duration in
office would lead to oppression and ruin. That he would be governed by
favorites and flatterers, or that a dangerous council would be collected
from the great officers of state,…; that a vice president is as
unnecessary, as he is dangerous in his influence—that the President
cannot represent you because he is not of your own immediate choice,
that if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and
odious [hateful, repulsive] aristocracy or monarchy…that the President
possessed of the power, given him by this frame of government differs
but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great
Britain, and I warned you to beware of the fallacious [false] resemblance
that is held out to you by the advocates of this new system between it
and your own state governments…[that] biennial elections for
representatives are a departure from the safe democratical principles of
annual ones—that the number of representatives are too few…that no
attention has been paid to either the numbers or property in each state
in forming the senate; that the mode in which they are appointed and
their duration, will lead to the establishment of an aristocracy, that the
senate and President are improperly connected…these are some of the
many evils that will attend the adoption of this government.”
What is the best description of Cato’s point of view?
A. He opposes both monarchy and government based on Roman ideas.
B. He supports monarchy and opposes government based on Roman
ideas.
C. He supports government based on Roman ideas and opposes
monarchy.
D. He supports both government based on Roman ideas and monarchy.
What is one of Cato’s criticisms of the proposed legislative branch?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Biennial elections for representatives are not sufficiently democratic.
Anyone will be eligible to run for public office.
The Congress will not be answerable to the people.
Congress will have more power than the president.
What specific arguments does Cato make against the executive
branch?
Document F: A Pennsylvania Farmer
Introduction
In addition to the ratification conventions held throughout the country,
newspapers also carried news of the conventions. Numerous letters to
the editor were also written in support of or against the proposed
constitution. In this excerpt, printed in a Philadelphia newspaper in
1787, one man explains his reasons why the constitution must be
ratified.
Primary Source
A Pennsylvania Farmer, Independent Gazetteer,
Philadelphia November 27, 1787
“O, America! arouse! awake from your lethargy! bravely
assert [insist on] the cause of federal unanimity [being
unanimous, of one mind]! and save your sinking country! Let it not
be said that those men who heroically extirpated [destroyed
completely] tyranny from America, should suffer civil discord to
undo all that they have achieved, or to effect more than all the
powers of Britain, aided by her blood-thirsty mercenaries, were
able to accomplish. Let not posterity say: “Alas, our fathers
expended much blood and treasure in erecting the temple of
liberty; and when nothing more was wanting but thirteen pillars to
support the stately edifice [large or imposing building], they
supinely [passively, as if lying on their backs,] neglected this
essential part; so has the whole become one mighty heap of
ruins...Do any of my fellow citizens ask, how may we avert [avoid]
the impending danger? The answer is obvious; let us adopt that
federal constitution, which has been earnestly recommended by a
convention of patriotic sages [men of wisdom], and which, while it
gives energy to our government, wisely secures our liberties. This
constitution, my friends, is the result of four months’ deliberation, in
an assembly composed of men whose known integrity, patriotism
and abilities justly deserve our confidence; let us also remember
that the illustrious WASHINGTON was their President. And shall
we, my fellow citizens, render all their measures ineffectual by
withholding our concurrence [agreement]? The preservation of
ourselves and our country forbid it. Methinks I hear every hill from
St. Croix to the Mississippi reecho the praises of this simple but
excellent constitution...then shall we take a distinguished rank
among the nations of the earth; then shall our husbandmen and
mechanics of every denomination enjoy the fruits of their industry;
and then, and not till then, shall we be completely happy.”
What is the author suggesting in asking the nation to “bravely assert the
cause of federal unanimity”?
A. that it is time for Americans to stop fighting and vote
B. that Americans should band together and support ratification
C. that Americans should consider whether it is worth going to war
again
D. that Americans are paying too much attention to factions who are
against ratification
What is the “impending danger” that the author believes is coming?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Americans will not come to any decision about the Constitution.
A potential war with Great Britain could start again.
Personal liberty will be sacrificed if the Constitution is not ratified.
The nation will be without a government and will fall into civil war.
What words and phrases does the author use to persuade people to his
point of view?
Document G: Samuel Eliot Morison
Introduction
Samuel Eliot Morison (1887–1976) was a Harvard professor and
historical writer who sought to bring history alive for his readers. His
epic volume, The Oxford History of the American People, from which
this selection is taken, covers American history from prehistory through
the death of President John Kennedy in 1963. In the excerpt below,
Morison gives his summary of the opposing philosophies in the fight
over the ratification of the Constitution.
Secondary Source
Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American
People, 1965 [pp 313-314]
Anti-Federalists appealed to Tom Paine’s sentiment, “That
government is best which governs least.” They viewed with alarm
the omission of annual elections and rotation in office.…Elderly
radicals such as General James Warren and his gifted wife Mercy,
who believed that the states were the true guardians of
“Republican Virtue,” predicted that the new Constitution would
encourage vice and speculation, and that under it America would
soon go the way of imperial Rome.
The Federalists were the realists.…Federalists believed that the
slogans of 1776 were outmoded; that America needed more
national power, that the immediate period was not tyranny but
dissolution, that certain political powers such as foreign affairs, war
and commerce were national by nature, that the right to tax was
essential to any government, and that powers wrested from king
and parliament should not be divided among thirteen states.
What is Morison’s point of view regarding Anti-Federalists in this
passage?
A. They were old-fashioned and alarmist.
B. They believed that America needed a stronger national government.
C. They were realists.
D. They wanted powers like war and commerce to be national in nature.
What is Morison’s frame of reference?
A. a historian in twentieth-century America, where the Constitution had
already survived for almost 200 years
B. a writer in eighteenth-century America, where he was an admirer of
James and Mercy Otis Warren
C. a first person observer in eighteenth-century America, where he
attended the Constitutional Convention
D. a soldier in the American Revolution
Are Morison’s point of view and frame of reference valid? Consider
whether Morison’s view of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists would
have been different if the new Constitution had failed as you write your
answer. Explain your answer.
Document H: “The Antifederalists
Were Right”
Introduction
In the following excerpt from an article by economics professor Gary
Galles, a definite opinion is offered concerning the arguments put
forward by the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate. Galles also
gives his view of the powers of the Federal Government today.
Secondary Source
Gary Galles, “The Antifederalists Were Right,” Mises
Daily: Wednesday, September 27, 2006
September 27 marks the anniversary of the publication of the first
of the Antifederalist Papers in 1789. The Antifederalists were
opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it
would create an overbearing central government, while the
Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As
the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But
that does not mean they were wrong or that we are not indebted to
them.
In many ways, the group has been misnamed. Federalism refers to
the system of decentralized government. This group defended
states rights — the very essence of federalism — against the
Federalists, who would have been more accurately described as
Nationalists. Nonetheless, what the so-called Antifederalists
predicted would be the results of the Constitution turned out to be
true in most every respect.
Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its
checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive
interpretations of promoting the "general welfare" (which would be
claimed for every law) and the "all laws necessary and proper"
clause (which would be used to override limits on delegated federal
powers), creating a federal government with unwarranted and
undelegated powers that were bound to be abused.
The judicial tyranny that was accurately and unambiguously
predicted by Brutus [Robert Yates] and other Antifederalists shows
that in essential ways, they were right and that modern Americans
still have a lot to learn from them. We need to understand their
arguments and take them seriously now, if there is to be any hope
of restraining the federal government to the limited powers it was
actually granted in the Constitution, or even anything close to
them, given its current tendency to accelerate its growth beyond
them.
With which statement would Galles most likely agree?
A. The Anti-Federalists were accurate in their fears that there were not
sufficient limits on the national government.
B. The Federalists were accurate in their fears that the new government
lacked checks and balances.
C.The Federalists were accurate in their belief of that the new nation
would thrive as the national government expanded.
D. The Anti-Federalists were accurate in their prediction that the
Constitution would be too weak to govern a large nation.
What is Galles’ point of view regarding the size of government?
A. Government should not be limited by restrictions set forth in the
Constitution.
B. The powers of government should expand as new situations like
wars and economic crises warrant.
C. The size of government should increase from its present size, as
intended by the Constitution.
D. Government should be strictly limited in its powers, as intended by
the Constitution.
Suppose Samuel Eliot Morison and Gary Galles met. What would be
Morison’s argument in favor of the Federalists? What would be Galles’
counterargument?