Textbooks and the Ratification of the Constitution: A Review Essay

Paul C. Cline and Anthony J. Eksterowicz

An enormous amount of ink has been devoted to the Federalist perspective.  In the last thirty years, thanks to the work of Main (1961), Storing (1981), Wood (1969), and Ketchum (1986), the Antifederalist perspective has been presented, analyzed, and juxtaposed against the positions and beliefs of the Federalists.  However, as we have discovered (Eksterowicz and Cline, 1991), leading American government textbooks at the college and pre-college level have devoted very little attention to Antifederalist arguments and positions.  Indeed, approximately twice as much coverage was devoted to Federalist as opposed to Antifederalist positions in college texts.  While the treatment of both positions was somewhat more balanced at the pre-college level, the quality of treatment involving the “great debate” was quite low.  This examination of twelve college and ten pre-college level texts led us to conclude that students would have a difficult time understanding the full nature of the ratification debate and how it has influenced our politics and government structure.

Since many students in middle and high schools and in colleges are required to take at least one American history course, we wondered how historians would approach coverage of this debate in their textbooks.  Would they do a better job than their counterparts in government departments or would we find similar trends?

To answer this question we examined seventeen American history textbooks, six at both the college and high school level and five at the middle school level.  The data is presented in a series of tables.  Our analysis will focus first upon the treatment of the debate in the various levels of American history texts.  Second, we have prepared summary tables of averages incorporating the findings of our first study involving American government textbooks with our new findings concerning history texts.  Before we begin the analysis an explanation of our methodology is in order.

Both manifest and latent content were coded (Babbie 1983, 279).  To ensure reliability two coders worked independently.  Areas of disagreement were reconciled by discussion conferences.  The results of the coding are displayed (tables 1, 2 and 3) and comparisons (based upon averages) of our findings concerning American government and history  textbooks are also included (tables 4 and 5).

Manifest content included the number of citations for Federalist and Antifederalist including citations in sub-headings, captions, pictures, and cartoons (1).  We specifically did not code citations in study or review sections or questions.  Data was compiled specifically from textbook sections titled, “The Ratification Struggle,” or other derivatives of this topic.  The number of paragraphs and pages devoted to both positions were coded.  If a paragraph mentioned and discussed a Federalist principle, it was coded as Federalist.  The same coding scheme was used for Antifederalist principles and paragraphs.  If a paragraph mentioned both positions, it was coded for both unless judged as overwhelmingly devoted to one viewpoint.  A few paragraphs were not coded because they discussed neither principle.  Pages were calculated by adding paragraphs.  Citations on suggested Antifederalist works were coded as well as the uses of Antifederalism elsewhere in the text (2). 

Latent content involved coding the quality of textbook treatment of Anti-federalist arguments.  Coding was facilitated  by  developing  predetermined categories: minimum, moderate, and maximum.  Within the minimum category, textbooks tended to treat Antifederalists as opponents of the Constitution.  However, their opposition was characterized mainly as an insistence on including a bill of rights in the Constitution and their caution against a strong central government.  Within the moderate category, textbooks included minimum treatment but progressed beyond it by discussing some aspect of Antifederalist leadership.  Quotations from Antifederalist tracts might be used.  Antifederalists were generally portrayed at this level as opposing big government and favoring small republics.  A brief but incomplete listing of Antifederalist grievances might also be cited.  Within the maximum category, textbooks included all of the minimum and moderate treatment but exhibited greater, in-depth characterizations of the debate.  Attempts were made to characterize the claims of the Antifederalists and the listing of their arguments was nearly complete.

A few textbooks exhibited considerable overlap between these categories.  As a result, it might be useful to view these categories as points on a continuum allowing for overlap.  Where such overlap existed or disagreements between coders were in evidence, arrows were used to indicate the direction of the treatment.

At the pre-college level (Table 2) the Antifederalist to Federalist explanation gap is substantial.  On average, Federalist citations led by 11.7 to 9.  While in page numbers the Federalist outnumbered Anti-federalist by a slight 1.16 to .84 margin, the Federalist position holds a decided edge in the paragraph category at 8.3 to 6.5.  This is roughly similar to the average proportion observed at the college level.  All in all, the coverage of both positions appears to be a bit more balanced at the pre-college level.  We must caution, however, that such treatment is misleading because the average number of pages devoted to explaining both sides of this “great debate” drops from 2.28 pages at the college level to 2 at the pre-college level.  It may be impossible for students to understand the positions of both camps from this paucity of coverage.  Latent content analysis tends to reinforce this observation.

In addition to statistical considerations, it is important to evaluate the quality of treatment of Antifederalist influences at the time of  the ratification  of  the  Constitution.   What  are the students  learning  about  the Antifederalist  position?  While Federalist explanations abound in these texts both inside and outside the ratification section, the latent content analysis (table 3) indicates that the sophistication of Antifederalist explanations actually increases substantially from college to pre-college texts.

No explanation of Anti-federalism in the college texts was sufficient enough to be placed in the maximum category.  Five explanations fit the minimum category and only one could be placed in the moderate realm.  At the pre-college level there was a reversal of this trend.  Eight texts were judged to fit the moderate category.  One text (Berkin and Wood) fit the maximum category while two were placed in the minimum category.

Judging from these texts it would appear that explanation of the ratification struggle is quite uneven.  Pre-college history texts exhibit a greater balance in their treatment of both sides in this debate.  They also exhibited greater sophistication in their quality of Anti-federalist treatment.  Still, from descriptions of the ratification debate in our sample of texts, it would be difficult for students to understand the full nature of the debate and how it has influenced our history and government.  Given these findings, how does the treatment of this historic debate as portrayed in history textbooks compare with the coverage in American government textbooks? Table 4 compares average citations, paragraphs and pages in college and pre-college government and history textbooks.  The average government textbook figures were derived from our earlier study (Eksterowicz and Cline, 1991).  We must inject a note of caution here at the college level.  We sampled six American history texts in this study and twelve government texts in our earlier study.  We do not know if the addition of another six history texts would have increased the averages although we suspect not.  The pre-college sample was roughly equivalent with ten texts examined in our government study and eleven in the present history study.

At the college level, the history texts exhibit a more balanced approach in citations, explanatory paragraphs, and number of pages than do the government textbooks.  Similarly, at the pre-college level, history texts had better balance in paragraphs and pages, with citations about even.  The number of citations, paragraphs, and pages in college history and government texts compare favorably.  Great differences, however, can be observed at the pre-college level.  The average number of Federalist and Antifederalist citations in history texts were more than double those found in government texts.  The same holds true for explanatory paragraphs.  The number of pages devoted to the debate in pre-college history texts dwarfs their government text counterparts.

Latent content analysis at the college level indicates that government texts do a slightly better job explaining the Anti-federalist position.  More government texts were judged to be moderate in their explanation and one was placed in the maximum category.  Again we must note the difference in sample size and caution that this is only a preliminary observation.  At the pre-college level this trend is reversed.  Seven of the government texts were placed in the minimum category while only two of the history texts were so categorized.  On the other hand, eight history texts were judged moderate and one maximum in Anti-federalist treatment while only two government texts were judged moderate in treatment.  There were no pre-college government texts in the maximum category.  A number of conclusions seem to flow from this analysis.

First, Federalist goals were adopted and ensconced in the Constitution; the losing Antifederalist side has suffered in terms of historic coverage.  Second, a type of “herd mentality” is associated with textbook coverage of the ratification debate.  If many leading or best selling textbooks decide to emphasize Federalist over Antifederalist positions, other textbook writers and publishers will follow their example.  Third, true debate implies controversy which, in this case, strikes at the heart of the Constitution.  Authors and publishers may shy away from controversy, fearing that it might harm sales.

The failure to present in-depth coverage of both sides of the ratification debate is important because this debate largely defines our nation.  It is impossible to understand our philosophical heritage without understanding the Antifederalist vision of republicanism.  In contemporary American government and history texts, Antifederalist beliefs in the decency of the common people and a greater participatory democracy or self-governing republic are largely missing.  Antifederalist suspicions concerning the corrupt nature of elitism in government are barely covered.  The Antifederalist implications of these visions for government and our history are also missing.  Some of these implications are: a greater emphasis upon trial by juries; a faith in the legislature for interpreting the Constitution; a larger House of Representatives with representation by class and occupation; a rotation of office provision for ensuring closer links to the people; and a dichotomy of localists and cosmopolitans which has affected American ideology and history through the centuries.

Perhaps the most important element missing from text discussions of the “great debate” is a characterization of both sides.  Such a characterization exists in the greater participatory nature and beliefs of the Antifederalists and the more republican and representative nature of the Federalists.  Indeed, these two diverse beliefs have shaped our history ever since the ratification struggle.  We must ask: How can students be expected to understand the Populist and Progressive movements or the contemporary reforms emphasizing state legislative term limitations without a full appreciation of the theoretical heritage associated with Antifederalist ideas?

To correct this unfortunate situation, we would urge publishers of government and history texts to enlarge their coverage of Antifederalist positions by using excerpts from Antifederalist writings and by linking these ideas to specific eras in American history such as the Jefferson/Jackson eras and the Populist/Progressive eras.  Secondly, we would urge American government and history instructors to be aware of the imbalance in presentation within textbooks and to adjust the balance in their lectures and discussion sections.  Indeed, discussion sections devoted to discovering both sides of this historic debate would seem especially appropriate.  Third, we would suggest that college authors in the disciplines of government and history examine the treatment of Antifederalism in pre-college history textbooks for the purposes of enlarging and embellishing coverage in order to generate greater student understanding of this historic debate.

A full appreciation of any debate requires the knowledge and understanding of the arguments of both sides.  By emphasizing the winning argument and superficially covering the losing argument in the ratification debate, government and history texts have transformed this debate into mere dogma.  Mere dogma cannot enlighten or inform students.  It cannot provide them with a full appreciation and understanding of their historical heritage.  It is both interesting and sad to note that after this nation’s celebration of the Bicentennial, students reading American history and government textbooks are still awaiting a full appreciation of Madison’s great experiment. 
 
 

Bernhard, Virginia, et. al. A History of the United States. St. James, New York: Brandywine Press, 1991. 

Blum, John M., et. al. The National Experience, 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989.

Current, Richard N., et. al. American History: A Survey, 7th ed. New York: Arthur A. Knopf, 1987.

Garraty, John A., and Robert A. McCaughey. The American Nation, 6th ed. New York: Harper Row, 1987.

Tindall, George Brown. America: A Narrative History, 2d ed.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988.

Wilson, R. Jackson, et. al. The Pursuit of Liberty, 2d ed.  Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1990.

Bailey, Thomas A., and David M. Kennedy. The American Pagent, 8th ed. Lex-ington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1987.

Berkin, Carol and Leonard Wood. Land Of Promise, 2d ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman and Company, 1987.

Boorstin, Daniel J., and Brooks Mather Kelley. A History Of The United States. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Conlin, Joseph R. Our Land.  Our Time, 2d ed. Orlando: Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1991.

Davidson, James West, and Mark H. Lytle. The United States: A History of the Republic, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

DiBacco, Thomas V., et. al. History of the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.

Davidson, James West, and John E. Batchelor. The American Nation, 2d ed., rev.  Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Divine, Robert A., et. al. America: The People and the Dream.  Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1991.

Garraty, John A. The Story of America. Orlando: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1991. 

Jacobs, William Jay, et. al. America’s Story. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.

Ver Steeg, Clarence L. American Spirit. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

1. In one text (Tindall) the words Framers or Founding Fathers were used to connote Federalist positions.
2. The most common use of Antifederalism elsewhere in these texts was in a discussion of the origins of political parties.

Eksterowicz, Anthony J. and Cline, Paul C., “Ratification of the Constitution: The Great Debate as Portrayed in American Government Textbooks,” Political Science and Politics 24, No.2 (June 1991).

Ketcham, Ralph, ed. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York: Mentor Books, 1986.

Main, Jackson Turner. The Antifederalists Critics of the Constitution. Chapel Hill N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1961.

Storing, Herbert. What the Anti-Federalist were For.   Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic.   New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1969.

Paul C. Cline is a professor of Political Science at James Madison University.  He is a former practicing attorney and a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates.  His research areas include the courts, political parties and local governments.

Anthony J. Eksterowicz is an associate professor of Political Science at James Madison University.  He has authored and coauthored articles on the topics of strategic arms control, citizen participation, political parties, education policy and Congress and the Presidency.