Constitution Studies on Showcase

By Jeff Philbrick

Junior and Senior students engaged in a two week deep dive into the United States Constitution, featuring a simulated debate. After a review of the War years, an analysis of the failed Articles of Confederation, and a look into the stressful yet important summer of 1787, they were ready to enact the state conventions for ratification of the US Constitution. This was of particular interest to the students, considering our great state of NH was the deciding state (#9) back in 1787. 

Students argued one of three options, basically on the spectrum of how strong the federal government should be, and how much power should be reserved for the state governments. The crowning achievement of the conventions which one group of students was responsible to present was the protection of individual rights, what we now call the Bill of Rights.  

Members of the Senior class personally responded to the challenge as follows: 

Emma

I was on the team which produced the questions for the Concerned Citizens, which fueled the debate between the three option groups. This was an interesting assignment because I had to predict what each option would say, and how the others may counter it. In order to make this successful, I had to think about these details so that I could create questions that might spark a valuable conversation. As a result of this Constitution Unit, I have gained a much greater understanding of the context of the creation and ratification of the US Constitution, and how important these decisions were as we are still affected by their outcomes today. As the person who had to get a general idea of all the option groups, this gave me the opportunity to understand how the different groups of people were thinking back when the Constitution was yet to be the official governmental document.

Faith

I was on the team that wanted to add a document called the Bill of Rights and protect individual rights. There was value in learning how to defend what you believe is morally correct. If we know how to defend and protect what we believe is correct for our country, then we should be able to defend and protect what we believe is correct for the world, Jesus. The debate we had was a great action step in practicing how to take the words of others and use them for the glory of God. Personally, I had to understand the views of the two opposing teams and recognize what their values were. Once there was an understanding of what was wanted, my team made our best attempts to find parts of our argument that aligned with theirs in order to persuade them to agree with us. During this time, it also brought recognition of how important it is to be fully prepared. This can be applied in day-to-day life; we need to be prepared to bring what we know to the people of the world and use them to bring them to God.

Meredith 

I was on the team that was arguing for the immediate ratification of the US Constitution as the only way to save the country. I found this very interesting to study because it is what the outcome turned out to be, so it was unique to come up with the defensive position for the Constitution. I felt almost as though I was sitting next to the men who wanted the ratification of the USC, and they were alongside me, figuring out the best way to show their friends that this was indeed necessary. It was extremely valuable to dig into the material, find solid reasons to defend our beliefs, and see the importance of a ratified constitution despite its flaws. This was an interesting assignment for me because it gave me a reason to not just see my own side of the coin, but also hear the other two sides of the debate, and the very valid reasons they presented. I gained a greater understanding of how my country was founded, the struggle it took to get there, and all the thought behind creating a better nation. I am grateful to live in this country, know my history, and carry a great appreciation for the US Constitution that is still in effect today. 

Josiah

The team I was a part of argued for trusting the common citizen. We argued that the Constitution would deprive citizens of liberties and create an oligarchal central government.  This study was very valuable for me because I gained an understanding of a different perspective. It is clear the dominant perspective is uniting around the Constitution, but this was far from what most Colonists believed. After the class, I had a better understanding of why many rejected the Constitution. If someone only understood and empathized with the Federalists, then it leads to a lackluster view of history. 

The debate was an amazing opportunity to clash the contrasting ideas together and work as a team toward defending your own. There is a huge difference between reading and comprehending the ideas and being able to orally debate your ideas. I achieved a higher empathy for the people as they debated the same ideas and problems we discussed in our debate. 

The class was an amazing opportunity to immerse myself in 18th century controversies. It provides a sense of gratitude knowing the level of hard work and struggle the nation had to overcome to get to this point.