TranslateThe Hub

Debating Democracy: Students Tackle Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Perspectives

Photo of Seattle Academy Students in Upper School Honors History 2024

Written by: Gena Wynkoop, Editorial Content Manager

During the fall trimester, Alisha Agard’s Upper School Honors History class participated in a lively series of debates, marking the culmination of their unit on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist divide. 

As part of their summative assessment, students were tasked with taking on the perspectives of these two early political factions and applying them to modern issues. The result? A deep dive into the philosophical tensions that shaped the formation of the U.S. government, with a contemporary twist.

The unit itself explored the period post-independence from Britain, when leaders of the fledgling nation were grappling with one critical question: What form of government would best support the future of the United States? 

The Federalists, led by figures like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, advocated for a strong central government that could unify the country, manage economic growth, and guide expansion efforts. They believed that a powerful federal government was necessary to maintain liberty and freedom in a way that individual states might struggle to achieve.

On the other side of the debate were the Anti-Federalists, who, led by voices like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, worried that a strong central government would quickly become overbearing. For them, the fight for independence had been against tyrannical power, and they feared replicating those same conditions under a powerful U.S. government. Instead, they argued that states should retain the majority of control, believing local governance was more in tune with the needs and rights of the people.

Students In Upper School Honors History in Alisha Agard's Class

The students took these historical perspectives and applied them to modern-day questions, with each debate group assigned either the Federalist or Anti-Federalist viewpoint. 

One group tackled the issue of education: Should the federal government mandate public schooling as the only option, or should states be allowed to encourage school choice, including private and independent schools? 

Another group explored the question of voting, debating whether the federal government should require mandatory voting for all eligible citizens and penalize those who abstain. They also discussed whether voting by mail should be standardized across all states, reflecting another layer of the central vs. local governance debate.

What made the debates so engaging was the depth of the students’ research and their ability to link historical perspectives to current issues. By stepping into the shoes of Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the students didn’t just learn about the formation of the U.S. government—they gained insight into how these early tensions still resonate in today's political landscape. 

It was clear that these debates not only helped solidify their understanding of the material but also encouraged them to think critically about how governance, whether at a state or federal level, impacts our daily lives.

The debates sparked thoughtful discussions and brought history to life in a way that a traditional assessment might not have. As the students left the classroom, it was evident they were walking away with a more nuanced understanding of both the past and its connections to the present.

After the unit, Alisha said, “I feel very fortunate to have had such a strong start to the school year with this class! Elections can be stressful and confusing, but these students have really jumped into the exploration of our country's government in ways that keep me excited for the future of civic engagement.”