Civic Literacy Curriculum

Introduction

By the start of the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson already had quite the list of accomplishments, but his influence on American politics was far from over. President George Washington chose Jefferson to serve as the United States’ first Secretary of State, a position in which he butted heads with Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury. The conflicts over principles, policies, and constitutional interpretation between Hamilton and Jefferson helped lead to America’s first political parties, with Jefferson leading the Democratic-Republican Party. One such conflict concerned Hamilton’s proposal for the federal government to establish a national bank. For this activity, students will think about the benefits and drawbacks of adopting either Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s position with respect to the creation of a national bank and the proper way to interpret the Constitution, particularly its Necessary and Proper Clause. The arguments of James Madison, who sided with Jefferson against the Bank but used different reasoning somewhere between Jefferson’s ultra-strict construction and Hamilton’s expansive interpretation, have also been provided as an optional third perspective.     

Preparation

• Provide each pair/group with the Pro-Con Worksheet: Debate over a National Bank
• Provide each pair/group with Jefferson and Hamilton on the Bank (1791)  
• Optional – Provide each pair/group with Madison on the Bank (1791) 

Required Materials

The Teaching Materials for this exercise includes an answer key.

Instructions

1. Divide the class into pairs (or groups of 3-4) based on the students’ individual levels. Group A is the group that needs some extra support. Group B is the core group that has the core knowledge to complete the activity. Group C is the enrichment group that has mastered the material; Group C students are prepared to extend their knowledge. Pair those who need support (Group A) with those who have core knowledge and/or have mastered the material (Groups B and C). 
2. Provide the students with the necessary materials: a copy of Hamilton and Jefferson on the Bank (1791), as well as the Pro-Con Worksheet.
   • As an optional additional reading, you may also assign Madison on the Bank (1791), either simply as background in helping formulate a critique of Jefferson or Hamilton or as a third perspective to have students analyze with a pro-con sheet. 
3. Explain to the students that today they will read Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s (and possibly Madison’s) respective arguments on the question of whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish a national bank. Students will consider the pros and cons of adopting one of their positions. Emphasize that they should consider not just the advantages or disadvantages of each position in terms of policy implications – what types of policies could or could not be implemented – but also the reasons for or against interpreting the Constitution in a Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian (or Madisonian) way.
   • For the purposes of filling out the worksheet, each pair/group should only list the pros and cons of either Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s (or Madison’s) position. You may wish to assign students to read only one figure in order to promote a balanced discussion of their arguments, and to save sufficient time for discussion. However, students should keep in mind that each thinker points to arguable shortcomings of the other’s position.
   • Note to students that the “pros” and “cons” that they list will be matters of interpretation and judgment and thus open to discussion. (In the same way, the sample answers provided for your reference should not be seen as simple factual statements, but evaluative/interpretive ones).   
4. Allow time for the pairs/groups to fill out their worksheets as they read through Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s (and/or Madison’s) arguments. 
5. Circulate throughout the room as the students complete their worksheets to check for understanding and help as needed. 
6. Once the students have completed the worksheet, use it as a springboard for discussion. Ask students to make the case for either Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s (or Madison’s) position. Try to foster an informal “debate” in this way. Through the course of the discussion, encourage the students to explain their reasoning as much as they can and to point to evidence from the Constitution and the readings when possible. 
   • If you are in need of some additional prompts for this discussion, consider utilizing some of the sample answers from the Pro-Con Worksheet. 
   • You may wish to encourage students to continue to jot down thoughts on their worksheets during this discussion. 

   • This can be a useful exercise to have students think about the value of debate and critique, and to separate arguments from the speaker. Note to the students that both speakers can be right about some things and wrong about others. For example, perhaps Jefferson’s critique that Hamilton’s substitution of “useful” for “necessary” is unfaithful to the Constitution is correct, at the same time that Hamilton’s similar critique that Jefferson is adding “absolutely” to change the meaning of “necessary” might also be correct, and that neither ends up accurately explaining the true meaning of the “necessary and proper” clause. But having different sides debate each other brings out the weak points in arguments.