Sitting in desks arranged as a makeshift courtroom, students in Ms. Desai's 8th-grade humanities classes stepped into the shoes of early American patriots, tasked with choosing between Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong federal government or the Anti-Federalist perspective championed by Thomas Jefferson.
To make such a hefty decision, the judges didn’t just read about the events leading up to the Constitutional Convention, they heard testimony directly from their classmates who were tasked to persuade the panel through a structured debate.
Desai explained that the goal was to ensure students understood both sides’ arguments — strengths, weaknesses, and all — by immersing them in the same experience representatives faced in the late 1700s. Throughout the week, students were divided into three roles: Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and judges.
Both political teams researched their historical positions, studying why early Americans supported each side. They then crafted evidence-based arguments—either in favor of ratifying the Constitution, as the Federalists desired, or opposing it in favor of a Bill of Rights and a less centralized government, as the Anti-Federalists hoped for.
Each group selected then selected a debater, who had the challenging task of not only presenting their case but skillfully rebutting the opposing side’s claims.
It all culminated in a lively courtroom-style debate. Debaters presented from behind a podium while judges listened intently, ready to ask questions that would help them choose the side that made the strongest argument—even if the outcome differed from history.
In Desai’s first class, the debate was spirited, but the judges reached a unanimous decision to ratify the Constitution, citing a fear that without a centralized government, there would be no way for the country to pay off debts or raise an army if needed.
In her other two classes, however, the tide turned: both groups ultimately rejected ratification, persuaded by well-crafted arguments from the Anti-Federalist teams who argued for states' rights and individual liberties.
"The afternoon classes that choose not to ratify said things like, 'civil liberties can not be assumed, and another class discussed that the Federalist party should want to have explicit rules because the fear of monarchy is too great," Desai said. "One class simply read Anti-Federalist rhetoric during their debate to make their point against ratifying the constitution."
Ultimately, the debates provided the perfect example of how difficult it was for the Founding Fathers to make the decisions that paved the way for America as we know it.