Contents of the Rating Guide
For Part III A Scaffold (open-ended) questions:
• A question-specific rubric
For Part III B (DBQ) essay:
• A content-specific rubric
• Prescored answer papers. Score levels 5 and 1 have two papers each,
and score levels 4, 3, and 2 have three papers each. They are ordered
by score level from high to low.
• Commentary explaining the specific score awarded to each paper
• Five prescored practice papers
General:
• Test Specifications
• Web addresses for the test-specific conversion chart and teacher
evaluation forms
Updated information regarding the rating of this examination may be posted on the
New York State Education Department’s web site during the rating period. Visit the
site at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/
and select the link “Scoring Information”
for any recently posted information regarding this examination. This site should be
checked before the rating process for this examination begins and several times
throughout the Regents Examination period.
Copyright 2013
The University of the State of New York
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Albany, New York 12234
FOR TEACHERS ONLY
The University of the State of New York
REGENTS HIGH SCHOOL EXAMINATION
UNITED STATES HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT
Wednesday, August 14, 2013 — 8:30 to 11:30 a.m., only
RATING GUIDE FOR PART III A
AND PART III B
(DOCUMENT-BASED QUESTION)
VOLUME
2
OF
2
DBQ
Mechanics of Rating
The procedures on page 2 are to be used in rating papers for this examination. More detailed directions
for the organization of the rating process and procedures for rating the examination are included in the
Information Booklet for Scoring the Regents Examination in Global History and Geography and
United States History and Government.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [2] Vol. 2
UNITED STATES HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT
Rating the Essay Question
(1) Follow your school’s procedures for training raters. This process should include:
Introduction to the task—
• Raters read the task
• Raters identify the answers to the task
• Raters discuss possible answers and summarize expectations for student responses
Introduction to the rubric and anchor papers—
• Trainer leads review of specific rubric with reference to the task
• Trainer reviews procedures for assigning holistic scores, i.e., by matching evidence from the response
to the rubric
• Trainer leads review of each anchor paper and commentary
Practice scoring individually—
• Raters score a set of five papers independently without looking at the scores and commentaries
provided
• Trainer records scores and leads discussion until the raters feel confident enough to move on to
actual rating
(2) When actual rating begins, each rater should record his or her individual rating for a student’s essay on
the rating sheet provided, not directly on the student’s essay or answer sheet. The rater should not
correct the student’s work by making insertions or changes of any kind.
(3) Each essay must be rated by at least two raters; a third rater will be necessary to resolve scores that
differ by more than one point.
Rating the Scaffold (open-ended) Questions
(1) Follow a similar procedure for training raters.
(2) The scaffold questions are to be scored by one rater.
(3) The scores for each scaffold question must be recorded in the student’s examination booklet and on the
student’s answer sheet. The letter identifying the rater must also be recorded on the answer sheet.
(4) Record the total Part III A score if the space is provided on the student’s Part I answer sheet.
Schools are not permitted to rescore any of the open-ended questions (scaffold questions,
thematic essay, DBQ essay) on this exam after each question has been rated the required
number of times as specified in the rating guides, regardless of the final exam score. Schools are
required to ensure that the raw scores have been added correctly and that the resulting scale
score has been determined accurately. Teachers may not score their own students’ answer
papers.
The scoring coordinator will be responsible for organizing the movement of papers, calculating a final
score for each student’s essay, recording that score on the student’s Part I answer sheet, and determining
the student’s final examination score. The conversion chart for this examination is located at
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/
and must be used for determining the final examination score.
United States History and Government
Part A Specific Rubric
Document-Based Question
August 2013
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [3] Vol. 2
1 According to Gordon S. Wood, what were two weaknesses of the national government under the
Articles of Confederation that led to the Constitutional Convention?
Score of 2 or 1:
• Award 1 credit (up to a maximum of 2 credits) for each different weakness of the national government under
the Articles of Confederation that led to the Constitutional Convention as stated in this document
Examples: Congress did not have the power to tax; Congress could not pay its bills; Congress could
not feed/clothe/supply the army; Congress did not have the power to levy tariffs/could not
regulate trade/could not levy tariffs to retaliate against the mercantilist European empires;
Congress had trouble gathering a quorum to conduct business; unanimous consent of all
thirteen states was required to change the Articles; the government could not stop the
Barbary pirates from seizing United States ships in the Mediterranean/from selling sailors
into slavery; the territorial integrity of the nation could not be guaranteed/the government
could not force Great Britain to evacuate its posts in the northwestern parts of United
States territory/could not get Great Britain to honor the peace treaty of 1783; the territorial
integrity of the nation could not be guaranteed/could not prevent Spain from claiming
territory in the southwest; the national government’s inability to protect its territory and its
sailors led to international humiliation
Note: To receive maximum credit, two different weaknesses of the national government under the Articles of
Confederation that led to the Constitutional Convention must be stated. For example, the territorial
integrity of the nation could not be guaranteed and the government could not force Great Britain to
evacuate its posts in the northwestern parts of United States territory are the same weakness expressed
in different words. In this and similar cases, award only one credit for this question.
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: the United States could not claim new territory; Congress was forbidden to pass laws;
Congress had too much power; Congress could levy taxes
• Vague response
Examples: attempts to revise the Articles; there were plots; American dissidents plotted; problems were
severe/conspicuous; they had bills; it was unable to guarantee; defiance; efforts were
thwarted
• No response
Document 1
… Almost immediately after the Confederation was created, many Americans, including [James] Madison, came to see that it
was much too weak to do what they wanted. By the 1780s the problems were severe and conspicuous [obvious]. The Congress
could not tax and pay its bills. It could not feed, clothe, or supply the army. It could not levy tariffs to regulate trade or to
retaliate against the mercantilist European empires. It was even having trouble gathering a quorum to conduct business.
Attempts to revise the Articles and grant the Congress the power to levy a 5 percent impost [tax] on imported European goods
were thwarted by the need to get the unanimous consent of all thirteen states. Internationally the United States were being
humiliated. In the Mediterranean the Barbary pirates were seizing American ships and selling their sailors into slavery, and the
Confederation was powerless to do anything. It was unable even to guarantee the territorial integrity of the new nation. Great
Britain continued to hold posts in the northwestern parts of United States territory in defiance of the peace treaty of 1783. In
the southwest Spain was claiming territory that included much of present-day Alabama and Mississippi and plotting with
American dissidents to break away from the Union.…
Source: Gordon S. Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, Penguin Press, 2006
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [4] Vol. 2
Document 2
2 Based on this excerpt from The Federalist, Number 4, state one argument used by John Jay to
support ratification of the Constitution.
Score of 1:
• States an argument John Jay used in The Federalist, Number 4, to support ratification of the
Constitution
Examples: foreign nations will respect a firmly united nation; foreign nations will be more disposed
to cultivate our friendship if the national government is efficient and well
administered/if our trade is prudently regulated/if our militia is properly organized and
disciplined/if our resources and finances are discreetly managed/if our credit is
reestablished/if our people are free, contented, and united; how the nation is governed
will affect relations with other countries/a well-governed nation will improve relations
with other countries; a lack of unity would allow Britain/France/Spain to play off the
various republics/confederacies against each other; if we were divided we could become
liable to the contempt/outrage of other nations
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: it would allow us to get land from Britain/Spain/France; it would split us into a number
of confederacies; foreign nations would respect a divided nation
• Vague response
Examples: it is our situation; foreign nations will know; to be against themselves; contempt; affect
other countries
• No response
John Jay of New York wrote The Federalist, Number 4, in support of ratification of the Constitution. This is
an excerpt from that publication.
Source: John Jay, The Federalist, Number 4, November 7, 1787
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or
split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it
exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government
is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized
and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our
people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship
than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of [lacking] an
effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or
split into three or four independent and probably discordant [quarreling] republics or
confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps
played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their
eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how
soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never
fails to be against themselves.
Document 3a
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [5] Vol. 2
3a Based on this document, state one argument the Antifederalists used to oppose ratification of the
Constitution.
Score of 1:
• States an argument the Antifederalists used to oppose ratification of the Constitution based on this
document
Examples: the United States is too big to be governed by one legislature; a single legislature could
not attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts; the legislature could
not be large enough/sufficiently numerous to be acquainted with the local
conditions/wants of different districts; the legislature would not have sufficient time to
attend to/provide for all the variety of cases; a free, large republic cannot long
subsist/exist; one great republic will not be as good as thirteen confederated republics
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: a confederated government is not the best for the United States; the thirteen states
should be consolidated into one/consolidated into one great republic; the United States
needed to be governed by one legislature
• Vague response
Examples: there are some reasons; the new constitution is calculated; the legislature cannot attend;
there is not time to attend to all the cases of this nature; it ought to be adopted
• No response
Source: Antifederalist Papers, Brutus Number 1, October 18, 1787
… The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government
be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States
should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction
of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics,
under the direction and controul [control] of a supreme federal head for certain defined national
purposes only?…
In a republic of such vast extent as the United–States, the legislature cannot attend to the various
concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be acquainted
with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it
should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that
would be continually arising.…
These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist
[survive] over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is
calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be
adopted.…
Document 3b
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [6] Vol. 2
Source: George Mason, “Objections to the Constitution,” October 7, 1787
There is no declaration of rights; and the laws of the general government being paramount
[superior] to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the
separate states are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefits
of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted
by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states.…
There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil
cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace.…
3b According to George Mason, what is one argument against ratifying the new Constitution?
Score of 1:
• States an argument against ratifying the new Constitution according to George Mason
Examples: there is no declaration of rights; since the laws of the federal government will be
paramount over those of the states, the states’ declarations of rights will not provide
security; the benefits of the common law to protect the peoples’ rights are not part of the
proposed federal constitution; the common law has not been adopted within the new
federal constitution; no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press/the
trial by jury in civil cases; no protection against the danger from standing armies in time
of peace; it lacks a bill of rights
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: there is a declaration of rights; the people will enjoy the benefit of common law; the
laws of the states would be superior to the federal government
• Vague response
Examples: declaration of rights; the constitutions of several states; it has no foundation; it is
paramount
• No response
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [7] Vol. 2
4 Based on these documents, why was New Orleans important to the United States?
Score of 1:
• States a reason New Orleans was important to the United States based on these documents
Examples: the produce of three-eighths of our territory passes through New Orleans to get to
market; it is located at the mouth of the Mississippi River; it is the gateway to the Gulf
of Mexico and therefore to trade with the rest of the world; it is a major trading port;
without New Orleans, the Mississippi River’s value for trading is limited; France could
stop our shipments of produce to market; France controls trade through New Orleans;
lack of control over New Orleans threatens out trade/exports; any foreign power holding
New Orleans would be our natural and habitual enemy/an enemy controlled it; it was
strategically important
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: it contains more than half of our inhabitants; it is located at the mouth of the Missouri
River; it provides a route to Spanish Mexico; yields more than half our whole produce
• Vague response
Examples: it is on the globe; one single spot; France assumes an attitude of defiance; our natural
and habitual enemy; France placed herself in that door
• No response
Document 4a
Source: President Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Robert Livingston, 1802
… There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual
enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three-eighths of our territory must pass
to market, and from its fertility it will ere [before] long yield more than half of our whole produce
and contain more than half our inhabitants. France, placing herself in that door, assumes to us
the attitude of defiance.…
United States in 1803
SEJL kWtlUitdStt Hit P P ti H ll 2008 ( d t d)
N
S
W
E
Atlantic
Ocean
Pacific
Ocean
Gulf
of Mexico
French
Louisiana
Spanish
Mexico
Spanish
Florida
British Canada
Oregon
Country
Disputed
United States
GA
NC
SC
TN
KY
VA
NY
PA
MA
VT
NH
MA
CT
RI
DE
NJ
MD
OH
M
i
s
s
o
u
r
i
R
i
v
e
r
O
h
i
o
R
i
v
e
r
New Orleans
M
i
s
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
R
i
v
e
r
Source: Emma J. Lapsansky-Werner et al., United States History, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008 (adapted)
Source: President Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Robert Livingston, 1802
Document 4b
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [8] Vol. 2
Document 5
Source: Senator John C. Breckenridge, November 3, 1803
… To acquire an empire of perhaps half the extent of the one we possessed, from the most
powerful and warlike nation on earth, without bloodshed, without the oppression of a single
individual, without in the least embarrassing the ordinary operations of your finances, and all this
through the peaceful forms of negotiation, and in despite too of the opposition [despite the
opposition] of a considerable portion of the community, is an achievement of which the archives
of the predecessors, at least, of those now in office, cannot furnish a parallel.…
5 According to Senator John C. Breckenridge, what is one reason he supports the purchase of the
Louisiana Territory?
Score of 1:
• States a reason Senator John C. Breckenridge supported the purchase of the Louisiana Territory according to
this document
Examples: we would gain half again the amount of territory/land the United States currently possesses;
it would extend the size of the United States; the acquisition of territory is occurring without
bloodshed/without oppression of a single individual; it was affordable/it would not embarrass
our finances; it was achieved through peaceful negotiations
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: there was no opposition to the purchase; it would be free; it would cut the United States in
half
• Vague response
Examples: it would be half the extent; it furnished a parallel; it would be a considerable portion of the
community; without bloodshed; cannot furnish a parallel
• No response
Source: National Park Service
… When news of the [Louisiana] purchase reached the United States, President [Thomas]
Jefferson was surprised. He had authorized the expenditure of $10 million for a port city, and
instead received treaties committing the government to spend $15 million on a land package
which would double the size of the country. Jefferson’s political opponents in the Federalist
Party argued that the Louisiana purchase was a worthless desert, and that the Constitution did
not provide for the acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties without the consent of the
Senate. What really worried the opposition was the new states which would inevitably be carved
from the Louisiana territory, strengthening Western and Southern interests in Congress, and
further reducing the influence of New England Federalists in national affairs. President
Jefferson was an enthusiastic supporter of westward expansion, and held firm in his support for
the treaty. Despite Federalist objections, the U.S. Senate ratified the Louisiana treaty in the
autumn of 1803.…
Document 6
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [9] Vol. 2
6 Based on this document, state two reasons the Federalist Party opposed the purchase of the Louisiana
Territory.
Score of 2 or 1:
• Award 1 credit (up to a maximum of 2 credits) for each different reason the Federalist Party opposed the
purchase of the Louisiana Territory based on this document
Examples: the Louisiana Purchase/territory was a worthless desert; the Constitution did not provide for
the acquisition of new land/negotiating treaties without the consent of the Senate/Federalists
believed the purchase was unconstitutional; new states would be carved from the Louisiana
territory; new states would strengthen the western and southern interests in Congress/the new
states would reduce the influence of New England Federalists in national affairs
Note: To receive maximum credit, two different reasons the Federalist Party opposed the purchase of the
Louisiana Territory must be stated. For example, Federalists believed the purchase was unconstitutional
and the Constitution did not provide for the acquisition of new land are the same reason expressed in
different words. In this and similar cases, award only one credit for this question.
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: it was constitutional; it would strengthen the influence of New England; it would increase the
influence of Federalists in national affairs; the United States Senate ratified the treaty; $15
million was too much to spend
• Vague response
Examples: expenditures were authorized; President Jefferson held firm; treaties were received; there was
no consent; it favored some states/regions
• No response
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [10] Vol. 2
Document 7a
Source: Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 1, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947
The expiring months of the [James K.] Polk Administration in 1848–49 gave a dark augury [sign]
of the storms to come. Congress no sooner met in December than the agitation of the slavery
question recommenced [began again]; and even when the surface of the political sea for a few
days grew calm, beneath it all was commotion and intrigue. Polk in his last annual message dwelt
upon the importance of promptly supplying Territorial governments for California and New
Mexico. Three modes of settlement, he suggested, were open. One, which he preferred, was to
carry the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific; another, to let the people of the Territories
decide the slavery question when they applied for admission; and the third, to lay the issue
before the Supreme Court. But Northern free-soilers and Southern extremists could agree on
none of the three.…
7a Based on this document, what were two ways President Polk proposed to address the issue of slavery
in the territories?
Score of 2 or 1:
• Award 1 credit (up to a maximum of 2 credits) for each different way President Polk proposed to address the
issue of slavery in the territories based on this document
Examples: carry the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific; let the people of the territories decide the
slavery question when they applied for admission/popular sovereignty; let the Supreme Court
decide/lay the issue before the Supreme Court
Note: To receive maximum credit, two different ways President Polk proposed to address the issue of slavery
in the territories must be stated. For example, let the people of the territories decide the slavery question
when they applied for admission and popular sovereignty are the same way expressed in different words.
In this and similar cases, award only one credit for this question.
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: an agreement between Northern free-soilers and Southern extremists; rejecting the Missouri
Compromise; keeping the issue out of the Supreme Court; using commotion and intrigue;
supplying territorial governments for California/New Mexico
• Vague response
Examples: by a dark augury; to recommence; by three modes; Supreme Court; by extending the line
• No response
Document 7b
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [11] Vol. 2
Effects of the Compromise of 1850 on the Territory
Gained from the Mexican Cession
Source: Thomas A. Bailey et al., The American Pageant: A History of the Republic,
Houghton Mifflin, 1998 (adapted)
Minnesota
Territory
IA
WI
CA
Utah Territory
Oregon
Territory
New Mexico
Territory
TX
Indian
Reserve
VT
ME
NH
MO
AR
LA
MS
AL
GA
FL
SC
IL
IN
OH
PA
NY
KY
TN
VA
NC
MI
MA
CT
RI
NJ
DE
MD
DC
U
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
Free
Slave
Popular
sovereignty,
1850
Admitted as
free state,
1850
Ceded by
Texas to U.S.,
1850
7b Based on this map, what is one way the Compromise of 1850 dealt with the issue of the expansion of
slavery into the territory gained from the Mexican Cession?
Score of 1:
• States a way the Compromise of 1850 dealt with the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territory
gained from the Mexican Cession based on this map
Examples: designated territory in the Southwest would be open to popular sovereignty/allowed for
popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah territories/territory ceded by Texas; admitted
California as a free state
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: kept an equal number of slave states and free states; set aside land as an Indian reserve;
admitted Missouri as a free state
• Vague response
Examples: designated some territory; admitted California; added territory from Texas
• No response
Document 8
Source: Senator John C. Calhoun, “The Southern Address,” 1849
… It is not for them [the North], nor for the Federal Government to determine, whether our
domestic institution [slavery] is good or bad; or whether it should be repressed or preserved. It
belongs to us [the South], and us only, to decide such questions. What then we do insist on, is,
not to extend slavery, but that we shall not be prohibited from immigrating with our property,
into the Territories of the United States, because we are slaveholders; or, in other words, that we
shall not on that account be disfranchised [deprived] of a privilege possessed by all others,
citizens and foreigners, without discrimination as to character, profession, or color. All, whether
savage, barbarian, or civilized, may freely enter and remain, we only being excluded.…
8 According to Senator John C. Calhoun, what is one reason Southerners should be allowed to take
their slaves into the new territories?
Score of 1:
• States a reason Southerners should be allowed to take their slaves into the new territories according to
Senator John C. Calhoun
Examples: the federal government has no right to decide if a Southerner can move their slaves into new
territories; slaves are property and Southerners are entitled to migrate with their property; to
prohibit them from taking slaves into new territory takes away a privilege of property
owners/ slaveholders should not have their property rights/normal privileges limited; the
federal government should not be able to repress the institution of slavery in new territories;
it is their right as citizens to move their slaves/property; the inability to take their slaves into
territories would disfranchise them of a privilege possessed by all others
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: slaves are not property; to be disfranchised; it is the decision of the federal government; to
determine if slavery is good or bad
• Vague response
Examples: it is not for them; migrate/immigrate; the question has been decided; it should not be
prohibited; it is a violation; people have a right
• No response
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [12] Vol. 2
Document 9
Excerpt from Republican Party Platform, 1860
Source: Republican Party Platform, May 17, 1860
That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our
Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory [Northwest
Territory], ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to
maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the
authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to
slavery in any territory of the United States.
9 According to this document, what was the position of the Republican Party in 1860 on the issue of
expanding slavery into the territories?
Score of 1:
• States the position of the Republican Party in 1860 on the issue of expanding slavery into the territories
according to this document
Examples: that the normal condition of all territory of the United States is that of freedom; it was the
same as our Republican/founding fathers, who kept slavery out of the Northwest Territory;
slavery should not be legal in any territory of the United States; it should not be expanded
because “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law”; Congress/a territorial legislature/an individual cannot give legal existence to slavery in
any territory of the United States; they oppose it/are against it
Score of 0:
• Incorrect response
Examples: slavery in any territory of the United States is legal; authority of Congress gives legal
existence to slavery; slavery should be abolished
• Vague response
Examples: condition is freedom; authority should be denied; to give legal existence
• No response
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [13] Vol. 2
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [14] Vol. 2
Scoring Notes:
1. This document-based question has a minimum of six components (describing the historical circumstances
surrounding each of two controversial issues of the early republic and discussing at least one argument of
those in favor of each issue and at least one argument of those opposed to each issue.
2. The description of historical circumstances surrounding a controversial issue of the early republic may be
included as part of the discussion of the arguments.
3. The description of historical circumstances may focus on immediate events or long-term issues, e.g.,
influence of pre-Revolutionary events or a discussion of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation
for ratification of the Constitution.
4. The response should discuss at least two arguments for each issue. At least one argument should be of
those in favor of the issue and at least one argument should be of those opposed to the issue. Additional
arguments for each issue could be included as part of either discussion.
5. Arguments of those in favor of and of those opposed to the issue may or may not be labeled as long as the
point of view is clear in the discussion.
6. An argument in favor of or opposed to the issue may be discussed from a variety of perspectives as long
as the positions taken are supported with appropriate and accurate historical facts and examples, e.g., the
Louisiana Purchase doubling the size of the United States may be used as an argument to oppose or favor
the Purchase.
7. The discussion should be directly related to the issue itself, e.g., the discussion should focus on the
expansion of slavery, not slavery in general. Information should be evaluated according to its relevance in
each case.
8. The resolution of the controversial issue may be, but is not required to be, included in the discussion of
the arguments.
9. Only two issues should be chosen from the historical context. If three issues are addressed, only the first
two issues should be rated.
10. For the purposes of meeting the criteria of using at least four documents in the response, documents 3a,
3b, 4a, 4b, 7a, and 7b may be considered as separate documents if the response uses specific, separate
facts from each document.
11. Any document provided for this essay question may be used in the response if the information is relevant
to the issue being discussed. For example, Document 4 provides information that may be used in a
description of the historical circumstances related to the expansion of slavery into the territories. Such
usage should be evaluated on its relevance in each case.
Historical Context: In the early years of the republic, various controversial issues divided the American people.
Three such issues were ratification of the Constitution, purchase of the Louisiana Territory,
and expansion of slavery into the territories.
Task: Choose two issues mentioned in the historical context and for each
• Describe the historical circumstances surrounding the issue
• Discuss arguments of those in favor of and of those opposed to the issue. In your
discussion, include at least one argument on each side of the issue.
United States History and Government
Content-Specific Rubric
Document-Based Question
August 2013
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [15] Vol. 2
Score of 5:
• Thoroughly develops all aspects of the task evenly and in depth by describing the historical
circumstances surrounding each of two controversial issues and discussing at least one argument of
those in favor of each issue and at least one argument of those opposed to each issue
• Is more analytical than descriptive (analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates* information), e.g., purchase of
the Louisiana Territory: connects President Jefferson’s vision of an agrarian nation and his goal of
expanding national borders to guarantee farmers’ right of deposit at New Orleans to the argument of
supporters who wished to avoid an entangling alliance with England against France and to the argument
of Federalists who opposed the purchase based on their belief it would further diminish their political
power by expanding opportunities for farmers and support for Jeffersonian ideals; expansion of slavery
into the territories: connects the political concerns over the balance between slave and free states that
resulted from westward expansion into the Louisiana Territory and the Mexican Cession to the argument
of Southern states that used the compact theory and the fifth amendment as constitutional arguments
justifying the extension of slavery into the territories and to the argument of those who opposed the
expansion of “Slave Power” based on governmental precedents that banned slavery from new territories
• Incorporates relevant information from at least four documents (see Key Ideas Chart)
• Incorporates substantial relevant outside information related to controversial issues in the early years of
the republic (see Outside Information Chart)
• Richly supports the theme with many relevant facts, examples, and details, e.g., purchase of the
Louisiana territory: Napoleon’s need to finance war in Europe; Mississippi River; strict interpretation of
the Constitution; Livingston and Monroe; expanded border to Rockies; national market; Lewis and Clark
expedition; role of Native American Indians; expansion of slavery; expansion of slavery into the
territories: terms of Missouri Compromise; Maine admitted as free state; extension of 36°30' line; role of
Manifest Destiny; war with Mexico; terms of Kansas-Nebraska Act; reasons for Bleeding Kansas;
compact theory; Calhoun’s Exposition and Protest; role of King Cotton; Dred Scott decision; role of
Frederick Douglass; role of Uncle Tom’s Cabin; supremacy clause
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are
beyond a restatement of the theme
Score of 4:
• Develops all aspects of the task but may do so somewhat unevenly by discussing all aspects of the task
for one issue more thoroughly than for the second issue
or discussing one aspect of the task less
thoroughly than the other aspects of the task
• Is both descriptive and analytical (applies, analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates* information), e.g.,
purchase of Louisiana: discusses President Jefferson’s vision of an agrarian nation, the importance of
guaranteeing farmers the right of deposit at New Orleans, the argument of supporters who were
concerned about a possible negative economic influence with the continuation of French control on the
Mississippi, and the argument of opponents who were concerned about its constitutionality; expansion of
slavery into the territories: discusses how westward expansion raised the issue of the balance of power
between slave and free states, the argument of those who believed that slaves were property and could be
taken anywhere, and the argument of those who believed that Congress had the constitutional power to
govern new territories
• Incorporates relevant information from at least four documents
• Incorporates relevant outside information
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details
•
Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are
beyond a restatement of the theme
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [16] Vol. 2
Score of 3:
• Develops all aspects of the task with little depth or develops at least four aspects of the task in some
depth
• Is more descriptive than analytical (applies, may analyze and/or evaluate information)
• Incorporates some relevant information from some of the documents
• Incorporates limited relevant outside information
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some minor inaccuracies
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that may be a
restatement of the theme
Note: If all aspects of the task have been thoroughly developed evenly and in depth for one issue and the
response meets most of the other Level 5 criteria, the overall response may be a Level 3 paper.
Score of 2:
• Minimally develops all aspects of the task or develops at least three aspects of the task in some depth
• Is primarily descriptive; may include faulty, weak, or isolated application or analysis
• Incorporates limited relevant information from the documents or consists primarily of relevant
information copied from the documents
• Presents little or no relevant outside information
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some inaccuracies
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly
identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion
Score of 1:
• Minimally develops some aspects of the task
• Is descriptive; may lack understanding, application, or analysis
• Makes vague, unclear references to the documents or consists primarily of relevant and irrelevant
information copied from the documents
• Presents no relevant outside information
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, or details; may include inaccuracies
• May demonstrate a weakness in organization; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly
identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion
Score of 0:
Fails to develop the task or may only refer to the theme in a general way; OR includes no relevant facts,
examples, or details; OR includes only the historical context and/or task as copied from the test booklet; OR
includes only entire documents copied from the test booklet; OR is illegible; OR is a blank paper
*The term create as used by Anderson/Krathwohl, et al. in their 2001 revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
refers to the highest level of the cognitive domain. This usage of create is similar to Bloom’s use of the term synthesis. Creating
implies an insightful reorganization of information into a new pattern or whole. While a Level 5 paper will contain analysis and/or
evaluation of information, a very strong paper may also include examples of creating information as defined by Anderson and
Krathwohl.
All sample student essays in this rating guide are presented in the same cursive font while preserving
actual student work, including errors. This will ensure that the sample essays are easier for raters to
read and use as scoring aids.
Raters should continue to disregard the quality of a student’s handwriting in scoring examination
papers and focus on how well the student has accomplished the task. The content-specific rubric
should be applied holistically in determining the level of a student’s response.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [17] Vol. 2
Ratification of the Constitution
Historical Circumstances
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 1—Inability of Congress to tax; pay bills; feed,
clothe, or supply the army; levy tariffs to regulate
trade; retaliate against mercantilist European
empires
Trouble gathering a quorum to conduct business
Need for unanimous consent of all thirteen states for
revision of Articles
International humiliation (powerless to stop Barbary
pirates seizing American ships and selling
American sailors into slavery)
Unable to guarantee territorial integrity of new
nation (Great Britain holding posts in northwestern
parts of United States territory in defiance of peace
treaty of 1783; Spain claiming territory in
southwest and plotting with American dissidents to
break away from the Union)
Imbalance in debts and trade with Britain
No executive or judicial branch in Articles
No uniform currency
Boundary and land disputes between states
Massachusetts farmers facing foreclosure of property
Fear of anarchy after Shays’ rebellion
Fear of conservatives over threat to property
Annapolis Convention held to discuss trade
Philadelphia Convention held to revise Articles
Arguments in Favor
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 2—Need for stronger central government to
earn respect of foreign nations
Cultivation of friendship by other nations if
government efficient and well administered; trade
well regulated; militia organized and disciplined;
finances stable and credit reestablished; people
free, contented, and united
Protection for states from being taken advantage of
by foreign countries
Support of Federalist Papers for new Constitution
Details about Federalist Papers
Need for executive branch to enforce laws
Need for judiciary to arbitrate disputes between
states
Facilitation of foreign and interstate trade with
uniform currency
Protection from invasion and Native American
Indians with strong military
Agreement by Federalists to add Bill of Rights
Details about specific amendments in Bill of Rights
to address Antifederalist concerns
Arguments Opposed
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 3—Difficult for one legislature in republic as
vast as the United States (various concerns and
wants, not acquainted with local conditions and
wants of different districts, not enough time to
attend to variety of concerns)
No declaration of rights (no security for states’
declarations of rights when laws of general
government superior)
No declarations to preserve liberty of press, trial by
jury in civil cases, protection from standing armies
in times of peace
Precedent of the Revolutionary War being fought
against a powerful central government
Fear of executive acting like a monarch
Perceived favoring of upper class, merchants, and
bankers
Limits on democracy (electoral college, Senate,
lifetime judiciary appointments)
No Bill of Rights
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [18] Vol. 2
Purchase of the Louisiana Territory
Historical Circumstances
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 4—Possession of New Orleans by a
foreign power makes them a natural and
habitual enemy of United States (France)
Control of New Orleans and Louisiana
territory by France
Produce of three-eighths of United States
territory passing through New Orleans to
market
Potential for agricultural produce and
settlement in Louisiana Territory
New Orleans connecting Mississippi River
to Gulf of Mexico
Doc 6—President Jefferson an enthusiastic
supporter of westward expansion
Need for right of deposit for trade
Details of Pinckney Treaty
Migration of large numbers of Americans to Kentucky and
Tennessee
Transfer of Louisiana territory from Spain to France (1802)
Diminished importance of Louisiana to France with slave
uprising in Caribbean under Toussaint L’Ouverture
Napoleon’s need for money to conquer Europe
Offer of all of Louisiana to New Orleans negotiators, Livingston
and Monroe
President Jefferson’s vision of an agrarian nation
Arguments in Favor
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 5—Increasing the size of the United
States by half
Acquisition of territory without
bloodshed/oppression of single individual
Acquisition of territory by peaceful
negotiation
Well within the means/finances of the
country
Doc 6—Doubling the size of the United
States
Dependence of Northwest and Southwest farmers on Mississippi
River
Increase in nationalism and international prestige
Minimal cost compared to value
Control of entire Mississippi River
Expansion of United States border to Rocky Mountains
Ending of French influence in North America
Major step toward future goal of Manifest Destiny
Precedent for further land acquisition
Expansion of national markets
Possibilities of new animal and plant life discoveries
Potential mineral deposits and other resources
Arguments Opposed
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 6—Cost of $15 million despite
authorization of only $10 million
Louisiana a worthless desert
Acquisition of new land not provided for
in Constitution
Requirement in Constitution for consent
of Senate for treaties
Western and southern interests in
Congress to be strengthened by new
states
Loss of New England Federalist influence
in national affairs
Violation of strict interpretation of the Constitution
Negative impact on Native American Indians
Possible future conflicts with Great Britain and Mexico over
undefined boundaries
Difficulty of governing such a vast territory
Potential conflict over expansion of slavery
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [19] Vol. 2
Expansion of Slavery into the Territories
Historical Circumstances
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 7—Local settlers to vote on whether to allow
slavery (popular sovereignty)
Agitation over slavery question in Congress
President Polk asking for territorial governments in
California and New Mexico
Polk’s proposal of options (extending Missouri
Compromise line to Pacific, popular sovereignty,
Supreme Court ruling)
Disagreement with Polk’s proposals by Northern
free-soilers and Southern extremists
Compromise of 1850 (California admitted as free
state, popular sovereignty applied to Utah and New
Mexico territories)
Maintenance of balance between slave and free
states, establishment of 36°30' line for remainder of
Louisiana Territory with Missouri Compromise
Role of Manifest Destiny
Economic motivation of King Cotton
Abolitionists’ influence on controversy (William
Lloyd Garrison, Grimke sisters)
Role of Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act,
Bleeding Kansas, John Brown
Arguments in Favor
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 8—Only the South to determine whether slavery
good or bad, whether it should be repressed or
preserved—not the federal government or the
North
Desire for same privileges of property as citizens and
foreigners
No prohibitions on Southern slaveholders from
taking property into territories
Desire for more land with increased profitability of
slave-based Cotton Kingdom
Protection of property using fifth amendment upheld
by Supreme Court in Dred Scott
Maintenance of balance of power in Senate
Arguments Opposed
Key Ideas from Documents
Relevant Outside Information
(This list is not all-inclusive.)
Doc 9—Abolition of slavery in Northwest Territory
Duty of Congress to maintain ideal “no persons
should be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law”
Denial of authority of Congress, territorial
legislatures, individuals in 1860 Republican Party
Platform to give legal existence to slavery in any
United States territory
Contradiction of ideals of Declaration of
Independence
Slavery considered a brutal and inhumane institution
Work of abolitionists (Frederick Douglass, Harriet
Beecher Stowe)
Congressional jurisdiction over territories in
Constitution
Whenever there is a controversial issue, conflict is something that
naturally arises. 2 opposing sides clash, each believing that their own
position is correct. Both can make excellent points in favor of their
opinion and sometimes it is difficult to choose which side is right.
There have been many conflicts in American history where this has
been the case. Two examples are the ratification of the United States
Constitution and the expansion of slavery.
The Constitution is a document outlining the purpose and powers of
the national government. It was written to be broad and flexible to
better suit the needs of future generations. However, before this
document was created, there was another, the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles weren’t effective; they gave the federal government little to
no power because the writers feared the kind of power the British
monarchy had over the colonists. Although it was our first unifying
government and it created the Northwest Ordinance, which set up the
process for territories to become states, its weaknesses were a threat to
the well-being of the United States. Since the federal government was
not given much power, states had the final say about almost
everything, very little money could be collected from taxes, the army
was weak, and tariff laws could not be made without unanimous
consent. This did not make for an effective central government, and
despite Shays’ rebellion, supporters of state governments and
individual rights enjoyed the power that this government gave them.
Opponents of the new constitution, who preferred the Articles, were
called antifederalists. They would have liked to amend the Articles but
it was almost impossible to get unanimous approval for changes. After
a new constitution was written they opposed its ratification because
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [20] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – A
they were concerned about presidential powers and Congress abusing
their powers. Also it did not provide a guarantee for civil liberties.
Other arguements against it were that one powerful central
government would be unable to provide for the needs of individuals
because it was far removed from the states. The Antifederalists even
published articles in the newspapers to gain supporters as did the
federalists. Those that supported the constitution were federalists such
as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. They believed
that a strong effective central government would provide a stable
country and encourage respectful, diplomatic relations with other
nations as well as a strong economy. The government needed to be able
to have more control over the states and enforce laws without becoming
to powerful. In order to counteract the central government’s power, a
system of checks and balances was put into place. This prevents the
government from growing too strong by distributing power among
three branches of government. A system of federalism would
distribute power between the states and the federal government. In
order to convince antifederalists to ratify the Constitution, the
federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. This was
a list of individual rights that would be guaranteed to people. The
federalists won the argument when 9 of the 13 states ratified the new
constitution.
In the 1800s, people divided over the issue of the expansion of
slavery into the territories. The nation was literally split in two. The
North had gradually abolished slavery, and the South was generally
committed to slavery. There were new territories being added to the
United States at this time. When territories such as Missouri applied
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [21] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – A
to be states, there was a debate on whether or not slavery would be
permitted. The Missouri Compromise established a precedent for dealing
with the expansion of slavery. With the addition of land after the
Mexican-American War and another debate over the expansion of
slavery, President Polk stated that there were three possible solutions to
this conflict. The first would be to extend the Missouri Compromise line
out to the Pacific Ocean. Any territory above the line would be free,
and any below would be slave. A second possible solution would be to
allow popular sovereignty to decide if the state is free or slave. This
method was later attempted unsuccessfully in Kansas when applying
to become a state and an early “civil war” occured there known as
“Bleeding Kansas”. The third possible solution was to allow the
Supreme Court to decide. Some southerners rejected the idea of being
prohibited from taking slaves from the south to new territories. From
the southern perspective, this was infringing on their right to travel
freely with their property. They felt like their constitutional rights were
taken away. The Supreme Court agreed with them in the Dred Scott
case. This is ironic from a Northern perspective because the southerners
were opressing their slaves and taking away their rights, the rights
that are guaranteed by the constitution that “no persons should be
deprived of life liberty or property. . .”. Northerners and southerners
interpreted the Constitution differently. Some southerners believed
that no person or people had the right to determine if slavery was right
or wrong, it was a southern institution and therefore southerners
should decide if it stays or goes. Some northerners believed that if this
institution was breaking the Constitutional laws and rights of the
people, then it was the responsibility of the federal government to
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [22] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – A
enforce the Constitution. This conflict of intrests led to the bloodiest
war in American history, the Civil War.
In both incidents, there was opposition and each side truly believed
that their side was right. Federalists believed in a strong central
government to provide a stable nation, antifederalists believed in
providing state governments with power in order to preserve individual
rights. Northern Republicans in 1860 believed that slavery violated
the Constitution and that it was the federal government’s job to stop it
from spreading. Southerners believed that it was their institution and
that they should decide what to do with it. Both conflicts were solved,
but in different ways. The Constitution was ratified due to
compromises made to check the powerful central government, and a
Bill of Rights to provide individual rights. The slavery issue
ultimately could not be solved by a compromise and the Civil War had
to finally resolve it. Many times there will be conflict on controversial
issues, but there may be ways to compromise so that all can agree on
it.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [23] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – A
Anchor Level 5-A
The response:
• Thoroughly develops all aspects of the task evenly and in depth for ratification of the Constitution
and expansion of slavery into the territories
• Is more analytical than descriptive (ratification of the Constitution: it was almost impossible to get
unanimous approval for changes to the Articles; Antifederalists feared one powerful central
government would be unable to provide for the needs of individuals; Federalists believed a strong,
effective central government would provide a stable country and encourage respectful diplomatic
relations; expansion of slavery: when territories applied for statehood there was a debate whether
slavery would be permitted; some Southerners rejected the idea of being prohibited from taking
their slaves into new territories because it was infringing on their constitutional right to travel freely
with their property; from a Northern perspective this was ironic because Southerners were
oppressing their slaves and taking away rights guaranteed by the Constitution; some Southerners
believed that no person or people had the right to determine if slavery was right or wrong; slavery
was a Southern institution and therefore Southerners should decide if it stays or goes)
• Incorporates relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9
• Incorporates substantial relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: writers of the
Articles feared the kind of power the British monarchy had over the colonists; despite Shays’
Rebellion supporters of state governments enjoyed the power the Articles gave them; the
Antifederalists were concerned about abuse of presidential and Congressional powers; Federalists
agreed to add a Bill of Rights; Federalists won when 9 of the 13 states ratified; expansion of
slavery: North had gradually abolished slavery and the South was generally committed to slavery;
Missouri Compromise established a precedent; after the Mexican-American War there was another
debate over the expansion of slavery; popular sovereignty was unsuccessfully attempted in Kansas
and an early “civil war” known as “Bleeding Kansas” occurred; the Supreme Court agreed with
Southerners in the Dred Scott case; conflict over slavery led to the Civil War)
• Richly supports the theme with many relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the
Constitution: under Articles very little money could be collected from taxes, army was weak, and
tariff laws could not be made without unanimous consent; Antifederalists were opponents of the
Constitution who preferred the Articles; opposed by Antifederalists because no guarantee for civil
liberties; supported by Federalists; both Federalists and Antifederalists published articles in
newspapers to gain support; expansion of slavery: President Polk proposed extending Missouri
Compromise line to Pacific Ocean, allowing popular sovereignty, or allowing the Supreme Court to
decide)
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction that discusses that
sometimes it is difficult to choose which side is right in controversial issues and a conclusion that
discusses that the conflicts regarding the ratification of the Constitution and expansion of slavery
into the territories were solved but in different ways
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 5. The historical circumstances and
arguments for and against ratification of the Constitution and expansion of slavery are clearly
delineated using historically accurate information and integrate outside information with document
information. The response demonstrates a strong understanding of constitutional principles. The details
found in the treatment of each issue buttress the contention that both sides of an argument can be
supported by valid information and that compromise is not always possible.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [24] Vol. 2
From its formation in the late 18th century, the United States has
been fraught with controversial issues. These issues, such as the
expansion of slavery and the ratification of the Constitution have split
public opinion. Political leaders and the American people debated the
pros and cons. Principles dear to the American heart, like freedom and
individual rights were in the balance.
Until the late 1780s, the United States had a national government
based on the Articles of Confederation, created during the
Revolutionary War. This document gave the majority of the power to
the state governments since central power was not trusted. Each
individual state did what was in their own self-interest. There was no
executive or judicial branch, only Congress, which had responsibilities
but hardly any power. It was a very weak Congress because it “could
not tax and pay its bills” because states contributed only what they
wanted to (Doc. 1). They printed their own money, ignored calls for
tariffs, and controlled their own trade with other states. Without a
stable money supply or control of interstate trade, the government’s
hands were tied and it could not pay its debts. Although it had the
responsibility of handling foreign policy, Congress could not take
effective action when dealing with foreign nations. The military was
weak and our navy was small. Barbary pirates were seizing
American ships. (Doc 1). The British still sat in their forts in the
Northwest, even though the U.S. was officially independent as states
would not honor the terms of the Treaty of Paris. State governments
themselves were threatened by unhappy groups of farmers. After
Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts key leaders decided something
needed to be done.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [25] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – B
In 1787, the Philadelphia Convention convened, bringing together
representatives from the states. After much debate over revising the
Articles, a new document was created: the Constitution. It called for a
stronger national government with an executive and judicial branch
(Doc 3a). The power of the state governments would be reduced and
Congress would be able to levy taxes and tariffs as well as regulate
interstate trade and coin money. However, implementation of the
Constitution was not immediate; it still needed to be ratified by the
states. Some agreed and some did not because they saw the change as
too radical.
The Federalists under the leadership of John Jay, James Madison,
and Alexander Hamilton supported the Constitution. The leaders even
published a series of papers advocating ratification. In these papers,
they discussed the importance of the Constitution and why it would
help the nation. In the fourth paper John Jay wrote that the Constitution
would make other nations “cultivate our friendship” (Doc 2) rather
than “provoke our resentment” (Doc 2). A united nation would provide
stronger wall to foreign imperialism. A country with a national
government based on strong states would be weaker and more
vulnerable. The whole idea of the American Revolution was to protect
liberty through becoming a strong independent nation. The adoption
of the Constitution would help to ensure that.
On the other hand, the first draft of the Constitution did not
mention individual rights. This was one of the bones the Anti-
Federalists picked at. George Mason, who held Anti-Federalists views,
wrote “There is no declaration of rights,” (Doc 3b). This sentiment was
another reason why the U.S. broke away from Britain; they wanted
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [26] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – B
their rights. They felt acts, such as the Quartering Act imposed by the
British trespassed on their rights. They fought for liberty, and some
felt that the Constitution created a government that would take away
those liberties. The Constitution as written did not protect “the liberty
of the press” (Doc 3b) or “trial by jury” (Doc 3b). These were essential to
the America people. The press was used to freely express opinions,
without fear of repurcussion. Trial by jury allowed for a fairer and
more just decision. Thus, many Anti-Federalists feared the
Constitution would implement a government similar to the
tyrannical oppression under the British Parliament. Even though the
Federalists did not agree, they were willing to compromise and add the
first ten amendments guaranteeing civil liberties.
In the next century, the young nation experienced a different
dilemma: extension of slavery. African slaves were a cheap labor
source. Plantations worked by slaves was a way of life in the South,
ever since the 1600s when slaves were first brought to Jamestown. The
Northern states began to free slaves after the Revolution, in part
because of the effect of Revolutionary ideals and because the North
lacked plantations. As a result, Northerners had small farms and
some manufacturing. As more territory was added to the nation, in
transactions like the Louisiana Purchase, the issue of slavery popped
up again and again. The two sections of the country hassled over
whether new states should allow slavery, or not, beginning in the
early 1800s when Missouri applied for statehood. The debates over
slavery in Missouri although leading to a compromise were tense and
indicated that arguing over slavery in the territories applying for
statehood was not finished.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [27] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – B
With the addition of the Mexican Cession and continuing until the
Civil War the debate grew larger and larger, putting the North and
South against one another. Southerners felt that slaves were their
property, and as such they could not “be prohibited from immigration
with our property,” (Doc 8). Southerners felt it natural to move to other
states with their slaves, as Dred Scott’s owners did. For example, many
Southerners wanted to move to the Southwest leading to a debate over
whether slavery should be allowed in those territories. For Southerners,
their very existence was threatened by the debate, because they
depended heavily on their slaves to grow their crops. Without them
they would need a new labor source or a new lifestyle.
Some Northerners, and especially abolitionists, vehemently
protested slavery. They contested that slavery violated the basic
freedoms of every human being. Abraham Lincoln and the
Republican Party, although not abolitionists, felt that, “no persons
should be deprived of life, liberty. . .without due process of law,” (Doc
9). That was one of the main principles supported by the 5th
amendment in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They did not
want slavery to spread into the territories. Furthermore, they believed
that no authority could give “legal existence to slavery in any
territory of the United States,” (Doc 9). Some in the North believed
slavery was completely immoral and inexcusable. The more the North
pressed their arguments, the closer the country came to civil war.
In conclusion, the United States has been faced with controversial
issues in the past. However, debates were necessary and their outcomes
important. The debate over the Constitution was ended peacefully while
that over the extension of slavery was only settled through a civil war.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [28] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 5 – B
Anchor Level 5-B
The response:
• Thoroughly develops all aspects of the task evenly and in depth for ratification of the Constitution
and expansion of slavery into the territories
• Is more analytical than descriptive (ratification of the Constitution: government could not pay its
debts; Constitution reduced power of state governments; some saw Constitution as too radical; a
series of papers by the Federalists discussed why the Constitution would help the nation; Federalists
thought government based on strong states would be more vulnerable; Constitution did not mention
individual rights; Antifederalists felt Constitution would take away freedoms; even though
Federalists did not agree they compromised and added the first ten amendments; expansion of
slavery: issue of slavery popped up as more territories were added; beginning with Missouri, two
sections of the country hassled over whether new states should allow slavery; with the addition of
the Mexican Cession the debate grew; many Southerners wanted to move to the Southwest with
their property; Southerners’ existence was threatened because they depended on slaves; without
slaves Southerners would need a new labor source or a new lifestyle)
• Incorporates relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9
• Incorporates substantial relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: under Articles
individual states did what was in their self-interest; no executive or judicial branch in Articles;
under Articles Congress could not tax or pay its bills because states contributed what they wanted;
after Shays’ Rebellion something needed to be done; Federalists believed idea of the American
Revolution was to protect liberty by becoming a strong independent nation and the adoption of the
Constitution would help ensure that; Antifederalists pointed out that we broke away from Great
Britain because they denied our rights; expansion of slavery: plantations were a way of life ever
since slaves were brought to Jamestown; debates over slavery in Missouri were tense and indicated
that arguments were not finished; Southerners felt it natural to move to other states with their slaves
as Dred Scott’s owners did; abolitionists vehemently protested slavery; Lincoln and the Republicans
believed due process was supported by the fifth amendment; the more the North pressed their
arguments the closer the country came to a Civil War)
• Richly supports the theme with many relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the
Constitution: until 1780s national government based on Articles; Barbary pirates seized American
ships; British remained in their forts in Northwest even though United States officially independent;
under Constitution Congress could levy taxes and tariffs and regulate interstate trade; Federalists
under leadership of John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton published series of papers
advocating it; expansion of slavery: Lincoln and Republicans did not want slavery to spread into
territories)
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction that states
controversial issues led to debates over principles and a conclusion that the debate over the
Constitution was ended peacefully while the debate over slavery was settled through civil war
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 5. Document interpretation and outside
historical references establish the backdrop for an analytical appraisal of circumstances leading to the
debate over ratification of the Constitution and expansion of slavery. Conclusions in the discussion of
arguments for both issues support the premise that debates were necessary and their outcomes
important.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [29] Vol. 2
In the early years of the republic, various controversial issues
divided the American people. Most of those issues concerned the power
of the national government versus the power of the states. Some people
believed that a strong central government was essential to the success
of the U.S. while others believed that the power should lay with the
states. It was these beliefs that caused the ratification of the
Constitution to be controversial The purchase of the Louisiana Territory
also became a controversy over power during the early years of the
United States.
The ratification of the Constitution caused much debate between
those that supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those that
opposed it, the Antifederalists. The Constitution was created from the
failure of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the federal
government was too weak to do almost anything effectively with the
exception of the land ordinances. The states were left with most of the
power and even allowed to coin their own currency. This became a huge
problem in trade between states with different currencies with
different exchange rates every time a merchant crossed a state boarder.
A meeting was held in Annapolis to discuss trade problems, but more
had to be done to improve the Articles. A convention was then called to
revise the Articles but the final product was a complete scraping of the
Articles and the drafting of a new Constitution which surprised some
Americans. According to Gordon S. Wood those that may have seen
the drafting of the Constitution as outside of the powers of the
convention should have been able to see that under the Articles the
government could not tax the people and this led to a debt that would
prevent the paying of bills or even proper maintenance of the army.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [30] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – A
Opponents should also have been reminded that as a new nation, the
U.S. now had to compete in foreign markets against Europeans
empires. Ratification and the adoption of the Constitution was urged
so that the government could have the power to levy tariffs, raise
revenue, and regulate trade so that the U.S. could stand a chance in
the foreign markets (Doc 1) John Jay supported the ratification of the
Constitution in The Federalist number 4, which was one of a series of
letters sent to newspapers explaining the Federalist viewpoint to
encourage ratification. He urged the states to ratify the Constitution
and show to the European nations that the U.S. was truely a nation
and not just a bunch of quarreling states which could be pushed
around in the Northwest or on the Mississippi. By ratifying it, the
U.S. would gain international prestige and respect which could aid
them in future conflicts (Doc 2). Despite these great points,
Antifederalists still opposed the ratification of the constitution fearing
it gave the federal government too much power. Sources such as the
Antifederalist papers argued that a federal government could not
possibly look out for the interests of each state and, that due to the
diversity of each state, some state will have their interests overlooked
and suffer under this strong central government (Doc 3a). Others,
such as George Mason, opposed the Constitution because it did not
have a Bill of Rights safeguarding the rights of the people. They
argued that with a strong central government, the rights of the people
would be violated and they’d be in the same situation as they were
when under British control (Doc 3b). Both sides had strong
arguments but in the end the Constitution was ratified and adopted
by all thirteen states. James Madison had agreed to a Bill of Rights as
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [31] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – A
a compromise to get Antifederalists to ratify the new constitution.
The purchase of the Louisiana Territory was another controversial
issue during the early 1800’s. The French having control of the
territory offered to sell it to the U.S. for only $15 million because they
despertly needed the money. Many people were for making the deal
with the French because it also included the acquisition of New
Orleans along with doubling the size of the U.S. New Orleans was
extremely important in this case because it was a major trading port
where 3/8th of American produce went through before going to market.
Acquisition of the port through the purchase would be a greatly
strategical, economic move. (Doc 4a & b). Others such as Senator
Breckenridge saw it as an amazing deal, all the better because it was
acquired peacefully from France, one of Europe’s strongest powers (Doc
5). However, despite how promising the deal seemed, the federalists
opposed the purchase. The federalists pushed a strict interpretation of
the Constitution and claimed if it wasn’t in the Constitution, it
wasn’t allowed. They said that the Constitution did not provide for the
acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties without the consent of
the Senate. They also feared that new states formed from the
acquisition of this territory would cause a shift in the balance of the
Senate with the addition of new senators. This would cause an
increase in the interests of the Western and Southern states and cause
a decrease in the influence of the New England states (Doc 6). Despite
these concerns, most Americans supported Thomas Jefferson and the
Louisiana purchase was made, effectively doubling the size of the
U.S. and giving the U.S. control of New Orleans.
Many controversial issues faced the young republic and divided
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [32] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – A
the American people. The ratification of the Constitution threatened the
power of the states but was able to create a strong nation that has
lasted more that two hundred years. The Louisiana purchase went
against the strict interpretation of the Constitution and threatened to
change the balance of power amongst the regions, but it gave control of
New Orleans to the U.S. and was the spark of Manifest Destiny,
allowing the U.S. to become what it is today. Despite these
controversies, as history has shown, the decisions that were made
proved to be correct and they have helped turn the U.S. into the great
nation that it currently is today.
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – A
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [33] Vol. 2
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [34] Vol. 2
Anchor Level 4-A
The response:
• Develops all aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and purchase of the Louisiana
Territory
• Is both descriptive and analytical (ratification of the Constitution: under the Articles states were left
with most of the power; those who may have seen the drafting of Constitution as outside the powers
of the Convention should have been able to see that under the Articles the government could not
pay bills or properly maintain the army; it was urged so the government could have power to levy
tariffs, raise revenue, and regulate trade; it would show European nations that the United States was
not a bunch of quarreling states which could be pushed around; Antifederalists argued that a federal
government could not possibly look out for the different interests of each state; some argued that
with a strong central government the rights of the people would be violated; purchase of the
Louisiana Territory: New Orleans was a major trading port; acquisition of New Orleans would be a
strategic economic move; Breckenridge saw it as an amazing deal acquired peacefully from France,
one of Europe’s strongest powers; Federalists pushed a strict interpretation of the Constitution and
claimed if it was not in the Constitution it was not allowed)
• Incorporates relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
• Incorporates relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: land ordinances were one
of the successes of the Articles; states allowed to coin their own currency under Articles; trade
between states with different currencies became a huge problem; some argued they would be in the
same situation as under British control; a convention called to revise Articles but final product a
complete scrapping of them and the drafting of a new constitution; a series of letters sent to
newspapers explained Federalist viewpoint; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: French
desperately needed money; it provided the spark for Manifest Destiny; Federalists feared new states
formed from this territory would cause a shift in balance of Senate)
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution:
Federalists supported it; Antifederalists opposed it; supported by Jay in Federalist, Number 4;
purchase of the Louisiana Territory: French offered to sell for $15 million; included New Orleans;
doubled size of United States; opposed by Federalists)
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction that discusses that
many of the controversial issues of the early republic concerned the power of the national
government versus the power of the states and a conclusion that discusses the positive outcomes of
the ratification of the Constitution and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 4. An analytical approach to document
interpretation and effective historical integration of that information characterize the appraisal of both
issues. While good conclusions are made throughout the discussion, strengthening of historical
circumstances concerning the Louisiana Purchase and further explanation of outside information would
have added depth to the response.
In the history of the United States, there have been many clashes
over political ideals. Some of the biggest of these disagreements came
in the first twenty five years that the United States was in existance.
As a new democratic nation, there was a lot for our founding fathers
to figure out. The first issue was regarding the constitution. Some
people wanted to ratify it, while others felt it gave the national
government to much power. A second major conflict over political
ideals was the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.
After declaring our independence from Great Britain we needed a
government. The United States first constitution was the articles of
confederation, which loosely unified 13 sovereign states. This
document intentionally granted little power to the central government
and almost complete autonomy to the States which had their own
constitutions.
According to document 1, the Articles did not allow the federal
government to tax, maintain an army, or regulate much of anything.
Having little authority quickly became a problem. Debts weren’t paid,
Spain knew that if it wanted to it could stop farmers from using the
Mississippi River, and states did what they wanted. It seemed as if we
were not a nation at all. These failures led Revolutionary War leaders
such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton to call for a
convention to revise the Articles, but instead they drafted a new
document called the United States Constitution. Getting the states to
ratify, or agree to, this new government however would not be easy
because it was a change that some found threatening.
Many people in the United States supported the government laid
out in the constitution, while others strongly opposed it. The group that
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [35] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – B
supported the ratification were called Federalists. Many of the
Federalist leaders had attended the convention and believed they had
written a constitution that would strengthen the United States. They
agreed that a strong national government was a necessity if the
country was to survive. In Doc 2 John Jay states his support for the
constitution because it would get the United States more respect in the
international community. Others would say it would create more
respect for the government in the United States and create more
confidence in the economy. Federalists supported having a powerful
central government with a checks and balances system to protect
against tyranny. With built-in balance, individual liberties would
also be protected.
The antifederalists were afraid of a government with so much
centralized power. They felt that in the new constitution, despite checks
and balances, civil liberties were not protected since there was no Bill
of Rights. George Mason in Document 3b shows this sentiment. Some
antifederalists agreed to ratify the constitution only when the
Federalists suggested a Bill of Rights could be added. Other
antifederalists, like the author of the papers in doc 3a, simply felt that
a national legislature would be ineffective in such a large country
and that giving more power to the states made governing sense. The
Constitution represented extreme change and worried Americans who
feared that a stronger central authority could be abusive. In the end,
the Constitution was passed with Federalist and some antifederalist
support and a Bill of Rights was soon drafted and added as the first
ten amendments to the constitution.
The purchase of the Louisiana Territory was also a question of
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [36] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – B
governmental power. At the start of the 19th century, Napoleon, the
Emperor of France, was involved in his quest to rule Europe. He was
also having trouble with his overseas colonies. In the Caribean,
Toussant L’Overture was leading a rebellion of former slaves. To focus
on his European conquests, Napoleon wanted to release his North
American possessions. He planned on doing so by selling them to the
United States. Part of the area he planned to sell was New Orleans. Doc
4b shows that this is the port on the Mississippi River where it reaches
the Gulf of Mexico. For some time, America had wanted control of this
area.
Many citizens supported the decision to buy the land, while others
felt it was not allowed in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supported
his decision because it was a great economic opportunity. According to
doc 4a much of the western produce went through the port, so control of
it would help U.S. economics and farmers who might otherwise be shut
off from using the Mississippi River by the French. Senator
Breckenridge in Doc 5 supports the decision by saying it’s the deal of
a lifetime and will go down in history as a brilliant move for
economic and political reasons. The Federalists opposed the purchase.
They felt threatened because new states in the West and South would
dampen their power because they were mostly New Englanders. As a
section, New England was worried about its own future as the rest of
the country was feeling more nationalistic about new westward
opportunities. They also felt that Jefferson was abusing presidential
power because the Constitution did not give the president power to
purchase land on his own. They thought there was no value in the
purchase and it would not be beneficial to our future. But Jefferson
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [37] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – B
helped prove its value by sending Lewis and Clark to explore overland
to the Pacific Ocean.
The two decisions affected a lot in their time. The adoption of the
United States Constitution changed the entire set up of American
government. Not only is it the government we still have today, but it
also helped form the basis of other countries constitutions. The
purchase led to U.S. expansion across the continent. Both drastically
affect our life today.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [38] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – B
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [39] Vol. 2
Anchor Level 4-B
The response:
• Develops all aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and purchase of the Louisiana
Territory
• Is both descriptive and analytical (ratification of the Constitution: federal government having little
authority under the Articles became a problem; Federalists agreed a strong national government was
a necessity if the country was to survive; Antifederalists felt civil liberties were not protected;
Constitution represented extreme change and worried Americans who feared a strong central
authority could be abusive; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: Jefferson supported his decision
because it was a great economic opportunity; control of New Orleans would help farmers who
might otherwise be shut off from using the Mississippi; Breckenridge believed it was the deal of a
lifetime; Federalists felt threatened because new states would dampen their power; Federalists
believed the Constitution does not give the president power to purchase land; Federalists thought
there was no value in it)
• Incorporates relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
• Incorporates relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: after declaring
independence from Great Britain we needed a government; Articles loosely unified 13 sovereign
states; failures led to a call to revise Articles but instead a new document was drafted; Federalists
supported a powerful central government with a checks and balances system to protect against
tyranny; a Bill of Rights was soon drafted and added as first ten amendments; purchase of the
Louisiana Territory: Napoleon involved in quest to rule Europe and was having trouble with his
overseas colonies; to focus on European conquests, Napoleon wanted to sell his North American
possessions; New England was worried about its future as the rest of the country was feeling more
nationalistic about new westward opportunities; Jefferson helped prove its value by sending Lewis
and Clark to explore to the Pacific Ocean)
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution:
Articles were first constitution; Articles did not allow federal government to tax or maintain an
army; supported by Federalists; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: port of New Orleans on
Mississippi River where it reaches Gulf of Mexico; much western produce went through port of
New Orleans; opposed by Federalists)
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction that discusses that as
a new democratic nation there was much for the Founding Fathers to figure out and a conclusion
that states the ratification of the Constitution changed the government to one we still have today and
the Louisiana Purchase led to expansion across the continent
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 4. The circumstances surrounding
ratification of the Constitution and the purchase of Louisiana are developed using accurate facts. While
important concepts are integrated in the treatment of differing viewpoints, further factual support of
document information would have strengthened the discussion.
In the early years of the republic, various controversial issue
divided the American people. Two of these issue were the ratification of
the Constitution and the Louisiana Purchase. Both had people in favor
and against the issues and both had long lasting impacts on the
nation. The ratification of the Constitution was important as it united
us under a goverment that worked and could adapt to the changing
world. The Purchase of Louisiana nerly doubled the size of our nation
and gave us control of the city of New Orleans.
At first our newly independent country was under a goverment set
up by the Articles of Confederation. This goverment had a lot of
decisions to make and problems to solve but didn’t have enough power.
Looking back on them Articles today we can see how ineffective this
goverment was. According to Gordon S. Wood (source 1) the national
goverment wasn’t given the power to levy taxes to pay its bills because
most of the people in the states remembered British taxation and didn’t
like it. Not having much money Congress could not feed, clothe, or
supply the army. The states didn’t seem to care about a goverment
without power until they started to worry that a Shays’ Rebellion
might happen in their own state. So the Constitutional Convention
met in Philadelphia in 1787 to fix the Articles. They ended up
scrapping them and creating the U.S. Constitution which was very
different from the Articles. The new goverment had three branches and
could adapt more easily over time with amendments that did not
require unanimous consent of the states. The Congress got delegated
powers to tax, control interstate trade, and raise an army and navy to
correct weaknesses of the Articles. The document needed to be approved
by 9 of the 13 states to be put into place. Ratification had its fair
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [40] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – C
share of opposition because an entirely new goverment was being
established. The Constitution gave a lot more power to the national
goverment and the states worried it could be oppressive. George Mason
wrote in “Objections to the Constitution” that it didn’t “preserve the
liberty of press, trial by jury in civil cases nor against the danger of
standing armies in time of peace” (Doc 3b). The arguements about
freedom of press and trial by jury were answered with the Bill of
Rights in 1791. It listed the first ten Admenments and the basic
rights of all men including the ninth amendment which assured the
people that the rights listed were not the only ones they had. John Jay
wrote in the Federalist papers that this new more efficicit goverment
would look good on the world stage and help us become a respected
power (Doc 2). The ability to raise money and a military would lead to
repayment of debts and a safer nation. We could begin to live up to
our potential after the successful Revolutionary War. The Constitution
was ratified by 9 of the 13 state and after Rhode Island gave in, it
meant it was approved by all.
The Louisiana Purchase also was a controversial topic in the early
1800’s. France at the time led by Napoleon needed some quick money
to fund the large amount of fighting being done in Europe. France
offered to sell the Louisiana territory to the United States for $15
million because it was no longer useful to them but the money was. It
would double the size of our country and give us control of New
Orleans which we had been willing to pay $10 million for. New
Orleans was a major port and outlet for the Mississippi river and trade
through it (Doc 4a + 4b). Farmers needed the river and the U.S. would
be better off not having the French so close to our borders. The
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [41] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – C
weakening Federalist party politically feared westward expansion and
was not in favor of the purchase. They thought that Louisiana was a
worthless desert and a waste of money. It would also add to the
national debt. But according to Senator John C. Brackenridge the
chance to add Louisiana was a once in a lifetime opportunity to get
such a piece of land for so cheaply from a warlike nation in a time of
peace without bloodshed. It was an offer that couldn’t be turned down
and despite Federalist opposition Congress agreed. The 1803 Louisiana
Purchase proved to be one of the best decisions in U.S. history.
In the early years of the republic there had been many controversial
issue that affected us even to this day. The ratification of the
Constitution over the old Articles set in place a new goverment that
was like nothing ever seen before. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the
size of our country, gave the US control of the Mississippi and New
Orleans, and would help inspire the idea of Manifest Destiny. The
issues both had their own opposition but today it is clear the right
decisions had been made.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [42] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 4 – C
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [43] Vol. 2
Anchor Level 4-C
The response:
• Develops all aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and the purchase of the Louisiana
Territory
• Is both descriptive and analytical (ratification of the Constitution: under Articles government had
many decisions to make and problems to solve but not enough power; new government had three
branches and could adapt more easily than Articles over time; Constitution gave much more power
to national government and states worried it could be oppressive; ability to raise money and a
military would lead to repayment of debts and a safer nation; purchase of the Louisiana Territory:
farmers needed the river and United States would be better off not having French so close;
weakening Federalist Party feared westward expansion; Federalists’ belief that the Constitution did
not allow for acquisition of new land without consent of the Senate was a narrow view; it proved to
be one of the best decisions in United States history)
• Incorporates relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
• Incorporates relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: under Articles national
government was not given power to levy taxes to pay its bills because most of the people
remembered British taxation and did not like it; states did not seem to care about a government
without power until they started to worry that a Shays’ Rebellion might happen in their own state;
Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787 to fix the Articles which they ended up scrapping; Congress
was given delegated powers to tax, control interstate trade, and raise an army and navy to correct
weaknesses of Articles; it needed nine of thirteen states; arguments about freedom of press and trial
by jury were answered in the Bill of Rights in 1791; ninth amendment assured people that rights
listed were not the only ones they had; it would help us live up to our potential after a successful
Revolutionary War; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: Napoleon leader of France needed some
quick money to fund fighting in Europe; Napoleon offered to sell Louisiana because it was no
longer useful but the money was)
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution:
Articles of Confederation first constitution; Congress could not feed, clothe, or supply army under
Articles; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: would double size of country; would give us control
of New Orleans)
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion
that states ratification united us under a government that could adapt to the changing world and the
Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of our nation and gave us control of New Orleans
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 4. Relevant historical information is used in
support of document interpretation to explain why ratification of the Constitution was necessary from
the Federalist perspective, while the Antifederalist argument could be strengthened. The discussion of
the Louisiana Purchase, while supported by document information, could have been strengthened by
additional supporting outside information.
Two major issues the divided the Union in the early years were the
ratification of the Constitution and the expansion of slavery into
territories. Replacing the Article of Confederation and giving more
power to the federal government with the Constitution led to opposing
groups, Federalist and Antifederalist. The expansion of slavery greatly
divided the nation sectionally between the North, South and the West.
The ratification of the Constitution and the subsequent replacement
of Articles of Confederation was a major issue, dividing the nation, in
the early Republic. It created the Federalists, who were for the
Constitution, and the Antifederalists, who were against it. The
Confederation had many weaknesses to it. It did not give Congress the
power to tax, raise an army, settle disputes between state, regulate
trade, required all 13 states consent for amendments, and only
created a unicameral legislature. Almost all American political
leaders saw at least some of these weaknesses but they were divided
over how to improve the situation. Some political leaders decided to
meet in Philadelphia to make changes and increase federal
government’s power. However, many leaders, such as James Madison
and Thomas Jefferson, realized making changes would not be enough
and an entirely new document would have to be made (Doc 1).
Federalist, like John Jay, argued for the Constitution and made
arguments that if other nations saw how efficiently the new nation
could operate they would be more likely to respect and befriend them
(doc 2). They also argued that the increased power would help further
unify the states and increase efficiency to help the people, even though
it took away states power. Antifederalist argued it gave too much power
to the federal government and not enough to the states, out of fear of
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [44] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – A
being under a tyranny like Britain again. They also believed that
such a large government could not tend to the needs of all of its people
in different regions, like smaller state governments could (doc 3a).
Another Antifederalist argument was that it did not guarantee
peoples rights, freedoms and liberty, like freedom of press and right to
a jury in civil cases (doc 3b). Thus, a compromise was made and the
Bill of Rights was created, guaranteeing the people their rights and
stating in the 9th and 10th amendments that the people have more
rights than were stated and powers not directly given to the federal
government or denied to the states in the Constitution would be left to
the states. The ratification of the Constitution was one of the most
important achievements in the early republic.
The issue over the expansion of slavery was one of the most dividing
issues in the history of the Union that ultimately led to a Civil War.
An early compromise was made during Monroe’s presidency, called
the Missouri Compromise, that banned slavery above the 36º 30' line
in the Louisiana Territory and allowed for the admission of Missouri
as a slave state and Maine as a free state. However, with the U.S.
acquiring more territory the issue quickly arose again and grew
exponentially in the 1840s. During President Polk’s term, the issue
was brought up again in Congress when the northern anti-
expansionists and the southern pro-expansionists argued over whether
slavery should go into new Western territories. President Polk proposed
three ways of addressing the expansion of slavery into new territories.
First he proposed extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific
Ocean, then he proposed popular sovereignty, which is letting the people
of the territories decide, and finally he proposed letting the issue go to
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [45] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – A
the Supreme Court (doc 7a). The first proposal was shot down but the
second proposal was accomodated in the Compromise of 1850, where the
territories of Utah and New Mexico would be granted popular
sovereignty, California was admitted as a free state and the Fugitive
Slave Law was strengthened (doc 7b). The North and South disagreed
over the Compromise of 1850, depending on their view of slavery in the
territories. The third proposal would later occur in the Dred Scott Case,
which ruled slaves were property and Congress had no right to decide
where people could bring slaves. This case caused more disagreement
because it was northerners who called for no expansion of slavery. Most
of the Republican Party was in the north, and, the Republican party of
1860 was against slavery’s expansion (doc 9). They believed slavery
violated the Constitution and the liberty of African Americans.
Southerners wanted expansion because they believed slaves were their
property and not people. They argued that just like everyone else they
should be allowed to bring their property where they pleased, and that
meant into the territories (doc 8). Some others wanted popular
sovereignty and the right to choose. This issue greatly divided the
nation to the breaking point and the Civil War.
The Ratification of the Constitution and the expansion of slavery
greatly divided the nation during the first 100 years of independence.
Without the ratification of the Constitution and the division over the
expansion of slavery, that would ultimately lead to the abolishment of
slavery after the Civil War, the United States would not be the same
today.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [46] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – A
Anchor Level 3-A
The response:
• Develops some aspects of the task in some depth for ratification of the Constitution and expansion
of slavery into the territories
• Is more descriptive than analytical (ratification of the Constitution: Federalists argued that increased
power would help unify states and increase efficiency even though it took away states’ power;
Antifederalists argued that a large government could not tend to the needs of people in different
regions like smaller state governments could; expansion of slavery: issue was brought up again in
Congress with Northern anti-expansionists and Southern pro-expansionists; Polk’s proposals
included extending Missouri Compromise line to Pacific Ocean, using popular sovereignty, or
letting the Supreme Court decide the issue)
• Incorporates some relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9
• Incorporates relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: leaders decided to meet
in Philadelphia to make changes and many realized an entirely new document was needed;
Antifederalists feared being under a tyranny like Britain again; a compromise was made and the Bill
of Rights was created guaranteeing people rights; expansion of slavery: ultimately led to the Civil
War; Missouri Compromise banned slavery above 3630' line in Louisiana Territory and allowed
for admission of Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state; Compromise of 1850
strengthened the Fugitive Slave Law; Dred Scott case ruled slaves property and Congress had no
right to decide where people could bring slaves; Republicans believed slavery violated the
Constitution and the liberty of African Americans)
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: Articles did not
give Congress power to tax, raise an army, settle disputes between states, or regulate trade;
expansion of slavery: territories of Utah and New Mexico granted popular sovereignty and
California admitted as free state in Compromise of 1850; in 1860 Republican Party against it)
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction that states that ratification
of the Constitution led to two opposing groups while the expansion of slavery divided the nation
into sections and a conclusion that states without ratification of the Constitution and the division
over expansion of slavery into the territories that ultimately led to its abolition after the Civil War
the United States would not be what it is today
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 3. Good descriptive information is provided
through a blending of outside information and document interpretation. While the opposing arguments
are clearly developed in the discussion of the ratification of the Constitution, the opposing viewpoints
are not as well developed in the narrative concerning the expansion of slavery.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [47] Vol. 2
The United States has often been divided on issues, that impact
polotics. Three major issues in the 18th and 19th centuries were the
passing of the Constitution, purchase of the Louissiana Territory, and
the expansion of slavery. Citizens and entire regions and social
classes were divided on these conflicts, and the result was a heavy
impact on actions of the gov’t and of the country.
The two major groups debating the US Constitution were the
federalists and the anti-federalists. The Federalists saw a need for
strong national gov’t to strengthen the states as one nation. Their
reasoning was the weak central gov’t of the Articles of Confederation.
Gordon S. Wood commented on the Article’s weaknesses in
Revolutionary Characters. The gov’t was weak because Congress could
not tax, and therefore, couldn’t pay bills. It could not support its own
army, and could not levy tarrifs to protect the economy from foreign
trade if all the states did not agree to it. The economy was suffering
and as a developing country we could not compete successfully with
European nations because they would not open their markets. [Doc.1].
There were other reasons to call for a stronger central gov’t. In
The Federalist Number 4, John Jay argued that a strong central gov’t
would cause European nations to respect the U.S. Reversely, he stated,
a disordered nation under the Articles of Confederation would be
bullied by European powers because they knew they could get away
with it [Doc. 2] The anti federalists saw reasons to not support the
Constitution however. In the Antifederalist Papers Number 1, they
argued such a large nation could not satisfy all its people, or attend to
the concerns of its different parts. [Doc. 3a]. One gov’t couldn’t make
everyone in a large territory happy because different areas might have
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [48] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – B
problems that a faraway gov’t would not understand and could not
solve. One large gov’t would be stretched too thin to work well. The
Federalists believed that citizen’s rights were implied and protected in
state constitutions. The Anti-Federalists wanted specific rights
explicitly stated in the Constitution. In Objections to the Constitution,
George Mason declared the declaration of rights by the state didn’t go
far enough, and the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights. [Doc. 3b] In
the end enough Antifederalists were satisfied by the promise of an
addition of a Bill of Rights and the Constitution was passed.
Now that the Constitution was secured it became known as the
highest law. So debate once again rose when the issue of land
acquisition appeared. France was facing debt along other problems,
and Napoleon offered President Jefferson the Louissiana Territory for
just $15 million. It would double the size of the country, but debate
arose between strict and loose interpreters of the Constitution.
Jefferson, who traditionally held a strict interpretation of the
Constitution, now looked to loosely interpret it to be able to buy the
territory. He argued since it was vital to US trade, the advantage
must be taken. [Doc 4a]. Senator Breckenridge supported Jefferson. He
stated it was a great opporunity to take such a great amount of land
from one of the world’s biggest powers, especially peacefully [Doc 5].
The Federalist Party however wanted strict interpretation of the
Constitution. They declared Louissiana was a wasteland and a
worthless desert. [Doc 6]. Despite their arguments Jefferson didn’t
budge and Congress eventually supported purchase of the territory,
doubling the size of the nation.
With expansion of the nation came more debate. Now it was whether
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [49] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – B
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [50] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – B
slavery should be allowed in acquired territories. In
Ordeal of the Nation, Polk proposed continuing the Missouri
Compromise line west to the Pacific, using popular sovereignty, or
Supreme Court rulings [Doc. 7a] Neither side budged, and conflict
continued. The Compromise of 1850 finally agreed to popular
sovereignty, which led to floods of migration to create free and slave
states. [Doc 7b]. John Calhoun still argued slaves, like property,
should be taken by slaveholders migrating to the territories. [Doc 8].
The Republican Platform opposed him and declared slavery
unacceptable. [Doc. 9] No agreement would be made, and the split
debate ultimately led to the Civil War.
Many times in history Americans became split on conflicting
interests. After long debates and periods of argument, compromise is
ussually reached. Other times citizens are put against each other, and
compromise isn’t reached until years later.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [51] Vol. 2
Anchor Level 3-B
The response:
• Develops some aspects of the task with some depth for ratification of the Constitution and the
purchase of the Louisiana Territory
• Is more descriptive than analytical (ratification of the Constitution: under the Articles Congress
could not tax and therefore, could not pay its bills; Articles could not levy tariffs to protect the
economy from foreign trade if all states did not agree; Antifederalists argued that a large nation
could not satisfy all its people; Antifederalists wanted rights explicitly stated in the Constitution;
purchase of the Louisiana Territory: Jefferson argued that since it was vital to United States trade
advantage must be taken; Breckenridge believed it was a great opportunity to take such a great
amount of land from one of the world’s powers, especially peacefully)
• Incorporates some relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
• Incorporates relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: European nations would
not open their markets; Mason believed the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights; Federalists
believed citizen’s rights were implied and protected in state constitutions; purchase of the Louisiana
Territory: France was facing debt along with other problems and Napoleon offered it to Jefferson;
Federalists wanted strict interpretation of Constitution; Jefferson, traditionally strict about the
Constitution, looked to loosely interpret it to be able to buy the territory)
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: two major
groups debating issue were Federalists and Antifederalists; Articles of Confederation; weak central
government; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: offered to Jefferson for $15 million; would
double size of country; Federalists declared Louisiana wasteland and worthless desert)
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction that states controversy
divided citizens, entire regions, and social classes and the results had an impact on actions of the
government and the country and a conclusion that states after long debates compromise is usually
reached but sometimes not until many years later
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 3. Three issues are addressed; however,
only the fist two issues may be rated. The framework for the response is focused on methodical
document explanation that establishes the context for valid conclusions, especially in the discussion of
ratification. Additional supporting facts and details in the discussion of the purchase of the Louisiana
Territory would have strengthened the discussion. Outside information is not integrated well.
In the early years of the republic, many different controversial
issues occured that divided the American people. Such issues was the
ratification of the Constitution; and the purchase of the Louisiana
Territory. Both events included people that either opposed the issue and
those who supported it.
When the Articles of Confederation were written people did not
realize its shortcomings. Congress, the only branch, was unable to
pay its bills because collecting money from the states was almost
impossible because it didn’t have the power to tax. It could only ask the
states for money. Some states, believing they wouldn’t benefit from
tariffs, refused to approve them. Congress could not regulate interstate
or foreign trade. It was hard even to conduct business. These issues
resulted in the U.S. not being taken seriously by other countries and
economic problems that couldn’t be solved. Some state leaders thought
it was time for a complete change. This ultimately led to a
Constitutional Convention where the Founding Fathers would decide
to give Congress more power and create two more branches. Those who
oppossed the ratification of the new constitution were called the
Antifederalists. They argued that since they would be governed by one
legislative government (National government) that could get out of
control (Doc 3a), then their civil liberties might be limited. George
Mason (Doc 3b) an antifederalist believed that the constitution would
not preserve the liberty of the press nor the trial by jury in civil cases.
The Antifederalists believed the Articles just had to be changed and not
ended. On the other hand the Federalists, those who supported the
ratification believed that the constitution would allow the national
government to become more efficient and well administered. Federalist
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [52] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – C
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [53] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – C
John Jay (Doc 2) argued that if the Constitution was ratified then
interstate trade would be regulated which would be better for our
economy. The militia would become more organized and disciplined,
which meant we would be able to stand up to European threats. U.S.
resources and finances could be better managed so we could establish
good credit, and most importantly the people would benefit from
knowing the country was heading in the right direction.
Another issue that occured during the early years of the republic, is
the Purchase of the Louisiana Territory. This land originally belonged
to the Spanish who gave it back to the French in the early 1800s.
Many Americans had already experienced and believed in westward
expansion and some were thinking about what the land was like west
of the Mississippi River. This motivated Thomas Jefferson to buy this
piece of land for $15 million. Some people were all for it. They
strongly believed this land was valuable because it contained the
Mississippi River which would help access the New Orleans Port to help
farmers and merchants to transport and trade goods. They also
thought that the territory would provide more land for agriculture. The
Federalists who opposed the purchase were rivals of Jefferson’s political
party and were conserned that credit for the purchase would mean
more popularity and votes for Jefferson and his political party. They
insisted the land was worthless, too expensive, and that the
Constitution should be interpreted strictly not loosely. They said that
the Constitution did not allow the president to acquire land or
negotiate treaties without the consent of the Senate. (Doc 6) Most
people in America did not agree with their arguments.
The two events during this era raised much contriversey and
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [54] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 3 – C
forceful arguments on both sides. Yet at the end the Constitution was
still ratified and one of reasons the Federalists won was because they
included the Bill of Rights which helped persuade some Antifederalists
to support ratification. The Louisiana Territory was also acquired.
From the time of its purchase and still today it is an important part of
the United States. Thankfully because we were able to buy this land
we were able to start moving further westward and add even more
territory to the U.S.
Anchor Level 3-C
The response:
• Develops all aspects of the task with little depth for ratification of the Constitution and the purchase
of the Louisiana Territory
• Is more descriptive than analytical (ratification of the Constitution: Congress was unable to pay its
bills because it did not have direct power to collect money from the states; the United States was not
taken seriously by other countries; Antifederalists feared their civil liberties might be limited if the
federal government got out of control; Federalists believed the Constitution would allow the
national government to become more efficient and well administered; purchase of the Louisiana
Territory: some strongly believed the land was valuable because it contained the Mississippi River
and gave us access to the port of New Orleans; Federalists believed the Constitution did not allow
the president to acquire new land or negotiate treaties without the consent of the Senate; Federalists
feared it would mean more popularity and votes for Jefferson and his political party)
• Incorporates some relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6
• Incorporates limited relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: under the Articles
Congress could only ask the states for money; some states refused to approve tariffs because they
did not believe they would benefit; the Founding Fathers decided to give Congress more power and
create two more branches; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: the Spanish gave the land back to
the French in the early 1800s; many Americans had experienced and believed in westward
expansion and some were thinking about the land west of the Mississippi River; Federalists believed
that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly not loosely)
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: under the
Articles Congress not able to regulate interstate or foreign trade; opposed by Antifederalists;
supported by Federalists; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: bought by Thomas Jefferson for $15
million; opposed by Federalists)
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction that is a restatement of
the theme and a conclusion that states Federalists were successful in getting the Constitution ratified
because they added a Bill of Rights and the Louisiana Purchase helped us move westward and add
more territory to the United States
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 3. This response effectively uses the
documents to discuss arguments for and against the ratification of the Constitution, however, the
discussion of the purchase of the Louisiana Territory is less developed. The inclusion of additional
relevant outside information would have strengthened the response.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [55] Vol. 2
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [56] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 2 – A
United means to stand together. “United” States implies that the
states of America must stand together in the face of foreign and
domestic disasters. Throught much of U.S. history, the states have
been all but united. Disunity was especially prevalent during the
purchase of the Louisana Territory and the expansion of slavery into
the territories. During these times, the nation was tested to stay
united.
The Louisana Territory was a large stretch of land in the center of
North America. The land was mostly empty plains in the nineteenth
century, except for New Orleans. According to document 4, New
Orleans was a very important port city. The map shows that New
Orleans is situated at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Western
farmers’ goods would need to pass by the port city to reach the ocean. It
made sense for the U.S. to secure New Orleans in order to keep peace on
the economically important waterway. According to document 6, the
Federalist Party strongly opposed the acquisition of Louisana. When
Jefferson purchased not only New Orleans but the whole territory,
Federalists saw that the Western and Southern based Democratic-
Republicans would increase in strength. For mostly political reasons,
they opposed the purchase. Most Americans saw Louisana as an
opportunity to expand, yet the differing view of the Federalists divided
the country. The country was not united. The gap between the
Americans was a precursor of more dangerous debates.
The issue of slavery had been prevalent since colonial days. In
original drafts to the Declaration of Independence, slavery was
supposed to be abolished. To gain support of the South, abolition was
removed, but the issue stood out. As the U.S. expanded West in the
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [57] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 2 – A
nineteenth century, slavery became a prominent issue once more.
According to document 7b, a compromise was made on the issue of
slavery in the Mexican Cession. California would become a free state
and the policy of popular soverignity would be policy in land between
California and Texas. The possibility of new slave lands was a very
contentious issue. According to document 8, Calhoun says
slaveholders should be able to keep their slaves when they move to the
territories. Document 9 shows the Republican Party was strongly
against slavery in the territories. The differing views of Calhoun and
the Republicans indicate a large divide on the issue of slavery. Their
views are strongly opposite and indicate there is no real “compromise.”
Eventually the division over slavery would lead to a Civil War.
The United States has been anything but united. It it’s long
history, the nation has faced disunity on many issues such as the
Louisana Territory and slavery. Despite it’s sucesses as a republic, the
U.S. has constantly been a divided nation.
Anchor Level 2-A
The response:
• Minimally develops all aspects of the task for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory and expansion
of slavery into the territories
• Is primarily descriptive (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: New Orleans was a very important
port city; when Jefferson purchased not only New Orleans but the whole territory, Federalists saw
that the Western- and Southern-based Democrat-Republicans would increase in strength; most
Americans saw it as an opportunity to expand; expansion of slavery: as the United States expanded
westward slavery became a prominent issue; Calhoun thought slaveholders should be able to keep
the slaves when they move to the territories; the Republican Party was strongly against slavery in
the territories)
• Incorporates limited relevant information from documents 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9
• Presents little relevant outside information (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: land was mostly
empty plains in the 19th century except for New Orleans; expansion of slavery: issue of slavery had
been prevalent since colonial days; eventually the division over slavery would lead to a civil war)
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: it was a
large stretch of land in the center of North America; the goods of Western farmers would need to
pass by New Orleans to reach the ocean; expansion of slavery: California would become a free
state); includes inaccuracies (expansion of slavery: in the original drafts of the Declaration of
Independence slavery was supposed to be abolished; to gain support of the South, abolition of
slavery was removed)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that discuss
that throughout much of United States history there has been disunity on many issues
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 2. A basic understanding of the documents
and their linkage to the concept of the nation being tested is demonstrated but would benefit from more
supporting facts and details. Lack of explanation detracts from the effectiveness of the response.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [58] Vol. 2
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [59] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 2 – B
Before the now known, United States, the country was merely built
upon thirteen colonies. The thirteen colonies were self-governed,
meaning they addressed all issues independently. Once the new
republic was built, many controversal issues separated the American
people such as, the ratification of the Constitution and the expansion
of slavery into new territories.
The Articles of Confederation was a short lived document much
similar to the Constitution only that the Confederation was weak. The
Articles of Confederation gave limited power to Congress and the
federal government, giving them limited control of domestic affairs
(doc 1). Federalists soon came along proposing the Constitution and a
stronger federal government who will regulate trade and be well
organized and administered (Doc2). Anti-Federalists opposed the
Constitution saying that a stronger local government will cater to the
citizens much better. They believed that a strong national government
will be unable to attend to the issues in the United States and would
limit the civil liberties that local governments protect. (doc 3a-b)
The issue of slavery as well has affected the people in the United
States to take different opinions of whether or not a new state should
be slaved or free. The North and the South went through huge disputs
decieding how states should be slaved or free. President James Polk
wanted to give the right to the states by using popular soverneignty
(doc 7a & b). This would allow the states to vote upon whether it’s free
or not. But the North dominated Republican party thought otherwise
by stating that no one person should be stripped of their civil liberties.
(doc 9).
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [60] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 2 – B
Both issues caused unrest between the different viewers. The
Anti-Federalists and Federalists came to the agreement that the
Constitution will be ratified but the Bill of rights will be added to
protect the civil liberties of citizens. The North and South, on the other
hand, began to split causing the South to separate from the Union
and soon reenter after strong militia power to perserve the Union.
Some states were put into the Union free like California.
Even at the beginning of the republic, the United States’ issues
were always soon settled by making agreements that would be in
favor of both sides of the arguement. Most issues would have not been
settled today without the strong national government the United
States obtains.
Anchor Level 2-B
The response:
• Minimally addresses most aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and expansion of
slavery into the territories
• Is primarily descriptive (ratification of the Constitution: Federalists proposed the Constitution and a
stronger federal government which would regulate trade and be well-organized and administered;
Antifederalists believed that a strong national government would be unable to attend to issues in the
United States and would limit the civil liberties that local government could protect; expansion of
slavery: popular sovereignty would allow the states to vote whether they wanted to be free or not;
the North-dominated Republican Party thought no person should be stripped of their civil liberties);
includes faulty analysis and weak application (ratification of the Constitution: the thirteen colonies
were self-governed meaning that they addressed all issues independently; the Articles were much
similar to the Constitution except that the Articles were weak; expansion of slavery: President Polk
wanted to give popular sovereignty to the states)
• Incorporates limited relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9
• Presents little relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: Bill of Rights would be
added to the Constitution to protect the civil liberties of citizens; expansion of slavery: the North
and South began to split causing the South to separate from the Union)
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: Articles of
Confederation gave limited power to Congress and federal government; expansion of slavery:
California admitted as a free state)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction that states before we were
known as the United States we were the thirteen colonies and a conclusion that states many
controversial issues today would not be settled without a strong national government
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 2. Limited document interpretation results
in abbreviated summaries of information that are occasionally supported by outside information. The
discussion of the expansion of slavery is oversimplified.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [61] Vol. 2
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [62] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 2 – C
In the early years of the republic, many issues divided the
American people. Two such issues were the passage/ratification of the
constitution and the expansion of slavery into new territories. The
issue of whether to ratify the constitution or not came first, with
federalist’s being “for” the ratification and antifederalists being
against it. Later in American history, the expansion of slavery into
newly aquired territories became a controversial topic that not only
dealt with politics, but with morals as well.
After the United States, or what was the 13 colonies, was declared
independent from England many were nervous that a strong central
government would turn into an autocracy! At this point in history,
each of the states was fully self governed, but the proposal of the
constitution would change that. Many U.S. citizens felt very
strongly about the passage of the constitution, which would call for a
strong central government, these people were call federalists. They
believed that if other nations saw the U.S. as having their militia
properly organized and their credit re-established, the U.S. as a whole
would be a well regared nation (DOC 2.) On the oppisate side of the
spectrum were Anitfederalists, who strongly opposed the ratification of
the constitution. Their reasoning being, that is was impossible for a
central government so far removed could actually deal with the
various concerns and wants of the confederate republics. (DOC 3A)
Federalists were often business men, usually wealthier and living in
the North. Antifederalists were usually farmers from the South who
feared that their property would be taken away by this “central
government.”
After the much disputed Louisianan Purchase, next came the even
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [63] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 2 – C
more disputed topic of whether to expand slavery into the newly
aquired territories. At the time, slaves were considered property, NOT
people. The majority of slave holders were in the south and the majority
of people moving into these new territories were from the South as well.
One arguement from a supporter of slavery in new territories was that
it is simply unconstitutional to prohibit people from migrating with
their “property” (DOC 8) On the other hand, one arguement for
banning slavery in these territories was that by alowing slavery, the
gov. is straight out denying men of their life, liberty and property
without due process of the law (DOC 9)
In conclusion, America has had their fair share of controversial
issues throughout it’s history. Whether it’s the “battle” between
federalists and antifederalists or proslavery people vs. antislavery
people, there are arguements that can be made for both.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [64] Vol. 2
Anchor Level 2-C
The response:
• Minimally develops all aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and expansion of
slavery into the territories
• Is primarily descriptive (ratification of the Constitution: Federalists believed that if other nations
saw the United States as having their militia properly organized and their credit reestablished, the
United States as a whole would be a well-regarded nation; Antifederalists felt that it was impossible
for a central government so far removed to actually deal with the various concerns and wants of the
confederated republics; expansion of slavery: supporters felt that it was unconstitutional to prohibit
people from migrating with their property; opponents felt that allowing slavery in the territories is
denying them their life, liberty, and property without due process of law); includes faulty and weak
application (ratification of the Constitution: after independence each of the states was fully self-
governed but the Constitution would change that; Antifederalists were usually farmers from the
South who feared their property would be taken away by this central government)
• Incorporates limited relevant information from documents 2, 3, 8, and 9
• Presents little relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: after the thirteen
colonies were declared independent from England many were nervous that a strong central
government would become an autocracy)
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: Federalists felt
very strongly; Antifederalists strongly opposed; expansion of slavery: slaves considered property
not people; majority of slaveholders were in the South)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction that mentions arguments on
both sides of the issues of ratification of the Constitution and expansion of slavery into the
territories and a conclusion that states arguments can be in made in favor of and against ratification
of the Constitution and expansion of slavery into the territories
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 2. References to some important concepts
demonstrate a basic understanding of issues related to the ratification of the Constitution and expansion
of slavery into the territories but additional supporting facts and details would have strengthened the
discussion. Arguments relating to the expansion of slavery are taken from the documents and presented
as single statements without explanation.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [65] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 1 – A
During the early years of the republic, various controversial issues
divided the American people. Two issues that had many different
opinions by the American people were the ratification of the
constitution and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. American
parties have had agreements on both topics and disagreements on both
topics but in the end the best was chosen for the United States.
The ratification of the constitution was a major achievement of
the United States. In document 2, John Jay is in favor of the
ratification on the Constitution. Jay says “our national government is
efficient and well administered.” Not all American people felt the same
way as John Jay. George Mason was against the ratification of the
Constitution. In document 3b, Mason says “There is no declaration of
any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in
civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of
peace.” Both American people just mentioned have good arguments
about the ratification of the Constitution.
Another achievement of the United States was the Louisiana
Purchase. This purchase marked a great economic achievement of the
United States as well. In document 4a, in President Thomas Jefferson’s
letter he mentions that if New Orleans is not purchased they can not
trade with other countries and that France has access to invade the
United States. New Orleans is also part of the Louisiana Purchase.
American people who opposed the Louisiana Purchase was the Federalist
Party. In document 6, the arguments of the Federalist Party state “the
Louisiana Purchase was a worthless desert and the constitution did
not provide for the acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties
without the consent of the Senate.” American people and parties will
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [66] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 1 – A
never always agree on the same things.
In conclusion, American people will always have controversial
issues that will divide them. The documents that have been discussed
proves that the American people have been divided because of these
issues. No two parties will have the same agreements.
Anchor Level 1-A
The response:
• Minimally addresses some aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and the purchase of
the Louisiana Territory
• Is descriptive (ratification of the Constitution: George Mason felt that the Constitution had no
declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press or trial by jury in civil cases; purchase
of the Louisiana Territory: Jefferson felt that if New Orleans was not purchased France would have
access to invade the United States; the Federalists felt that the Constitution did not provide for the
acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties without the consent of the Senate); lacks
understanding and application (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: if New Orleans was not
purchased we could not trade with other countries); includes faulty analysis (ratification of the
Constitution: John Jay felt that our national government was efficient and well administered)
• Includes minimal information from documents 2, 3, 4, and 6
• Presents no relevant outside information
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: George Mason
against; purchase of the Louisiana Territory: New Orleans part of it; opposed by Federalist Party)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction that states although
Americans disagreed about ratification of the Constitution and purchase of the Louisiana Territory
in the end the best was chosen for the United States and a conclusion that states the American
people will always have controversial issues that divide them
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 1. Historical circumstances are not
addressed in the discussion of ratification of the Constitution and only weakly addressed in the
discussion of the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. Quotations from the documents and general
statements demonstrate a recognition that there were arguments on each side of both issues.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [67] Vol. 2
Anchor Paper – Document-Based Essay—Level 1 – B
In the early years of the republic, various controversial issues
divided the American people. Like the ratification of the constitution.
The purchase of the Louisiana Territory and expansion of slavery into
the territories.
One issue that sticks out to me is the purchase of the Louisiana
Territory. The president wanted to expand but other people were against
it. A senator named John Jay was for this purchase as shown in
Document 5. It states he was for the purchase because other land the
United States gained was through war and bloodshed. But, the
Louisiana Territory could be recieved through only purchase and not
through war and bloodshed. Someone who was against it was the
Federalist party as shown in Document 6. They were against it
because they said that the president would be spending more money
than the original authorized expidenture. Also they opposed it because
they said that this land was not valuble, and a “worthless dessert”
These arguments were both valid, and also true but, there are many
other opinions out there that were not accounted for in this documents.
Another issue that stuck out to me was the expansion of slavery
into the new territories. After new land was bought and gained the
question of bringing the owners and them being able to bring their
slaves to the new lands. Senator John C. Calhoun was a supporter of
the expansion, as shown in Document 8. A reason he gave was because
they were property of the people. As shown in Document 9, the
Republican Party was against it. They brought up freedom and said
slavery is going against natural rights.
In conclusion there were many issues following the people of the
United States.
Anchor Level 1-B
The response:
• Minimally develops some aspects of the task for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory and
expansion of slavery into the territories
• Is descriptive (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: the president wanted to expand but other people
were against it; Federalists said the land was not valuable as it was worthless desert; expansion of
slavery: there was a question of the owners being able to bring their slaves to the new lands;
Republican party felt slavery went against natural rights)
• Includes minimal information from documents 6, 8, and 9
• Presents no relevant outside information
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: Federalist
Party opposed spending more money than original authorized expenditure; expansion of slavery:
John Calhoun supported expansion); includes an inaccuracy (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: a
senator named John Jay was for this purchase as shown in Document 5)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction that is a restatement of the
theme and a brief conclusion
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 1. Historical circumstances surrounding the
Louisiana Purchase are not addressed specifically and the arguments for both issues are presented as
unexplained statements. The application of document information indicates a very limited
understanding of these issues.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [68] Vol. 2
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [69] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – A
During the early years of the United States, controversial issues
were commonplace. The United States was a young country still
learning how to guarantee freedom and justice for its people without
overextending its power. Matters of contention were bound to arise. Two
examples of controversial issues that drove a wedge between the
American people are the approval of the constitution and the expansion
of slavery into America’s new territories.
From the very beginning, America faced disagreements over what
kind of national government should be established. Liking their
independence, many in the states were not ready to give much power
to a national legislature. Ratifying the constitution was not an easy
task for the thirteen states that once were colonies. They remembered
the problems they had with Britain as colonies. Some thought a new
government under the Constitution would also have too much power
over them. One thing was for certain, the weak, state-driven, difficult
to amend Articles of confederation had to go. There wasn’t enough
money and the army couldn’t be effective if they didn’t have food or
supplies (Document 1). A group of key leaders persuaded the states to
send delegates to consider what could be done with the Articles of
Confederation. The Constitutional Convention met in secret and
decided to prepare a new governing document for the United States.
This new document was also met with controversy because it gave
Congress more power over the states and people. Those in favor of it
praised its strong, central powers over the economy and military—
sound principles that would make other countries want to align with
America and hopefully make the American people united, happy, and
free (Document 2). Those against the new governing document argued
that there wasn’t any guaranteeing of the basic freedoms that every
individual should be entitled to (Document 3b). They thought the
federal government might simply take away a person’s rights to
freedom of religion or speech whenever it felt like doing so. They also
argued that a standing army was dangerous and the Constitution
was less democratic than the Articles. When writing this new
governing document there certainly were some issues to work out.
Supporters of the Constitution needed to compromise. They decided to
add a list of basic freedoms to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights.
When they did this they got the support they needed for ratification.
The decision over whether or not to expand slavery into the new
territories was an equally controversial one. During the period of
Manifest Destiny, in which the United States gradually expanded its
western boundaries to the Pacific Ocean, the issue of slavery arose
almost every time a territory wanted to become a state. How would
slavery be a factor in the new territories? Compromise was needed in
1850 because of two different arguments. Those who opposed the
expansion of slavery into the new territories cited the constitution’s
provision to not deprive individuals of their liberty as an argument
against further expansion of slavery (Document 9). To allow slavery to
spread into new territories seemed undemocratic. It was bad enough
when it was just in the South. On the other hand, Southerners felt
that their right to property would be violated since slaves were
considered property to slaveholders, if slavery was not allowed to
expand into the new territories (Document 8). If slavery was kept out
of new territories, there might be more free states and slave states
would be outnumbered. Slavery and its expansion was an incredibly
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [70] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – A
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [71] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – A
contentious issue that eventually sparked civil war.
Controversy is inevitable both in life and in government. However,
both sides of an argument need to be considered if a country is to ever
move on from this controversy.
* * * * * * * * * *
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – B
In the early years of the republic, various controversial issues
divided the Americans people. Three such issues were ratification of the
constitution purchase of the louisiana territory and expansion of
slavery into the territories.
The ratification of the louisiana purchase was to vast in a republic
such the United State, the legislative cannot attend to the various
concerns and want in its different parts. The expansion slavery, they
divided the state west were slavery and some free state and populary
soveirengtly. In the louisiana purchase they were giving free land to
the slave and after a couple years they pay for the rent also taxes.
Another issues slave was not allowed in the Sourth and no right to
vote. Congress despite in the opposite of an condinarable portion of the
community. Nor the people secured even in the enjoyment of the
benefit of the common law.
I conclude during the period of the louisiana purchase wasn’t a
good period at all.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [72] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – C
Throughout the United States history, there has been many
arguements, and different sides to each arguement. Perhaps two of the
most important conflicts in our history is the ratifying of our
constitution, which still exists today; and the expansion of slavery
into U.S. territories, which brought us to the Civil War. Each of these
issues was resolved in one way or another, wether it be compromise or
bloodshed.
During the United States of America’s fight for independence from
Great Britain, a new issue arose. After having 13 independent
colonial legislatures governing themselves the U.S. had to establish a
new governing body to unify the nation, help win the war, and
maintain its independence. Our first constitution was the Articles of
Confederation, which was aimed towards state rights. This form of
government, with minimal central authority was exactly what the
people wanted. This however led to too much state power as states
ignored the national government requests. It was soon apparent that
the U.S. had to come up with a new form of Government. Federalists
who worried about the nation’s economic problems brought forth the
idea of having a convention in Philadelphia. They wanted a written
constitution that backed a strong central government. Their
constitution would give the central government the right to tax the
states, and have power to regulate interstate trade that the Articles of
Confederation did not have and that the states rights Anti-Federalists
opposed.
Anti Federalists felt that the proposed constitution gave too much
power to a central government, and argued that it was too much like
Britains rule when we were colonists. Anti Federalists also argued that
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [73] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – C
the constitution did not protect individual rights. Both parties wrote
about and campaigned for their point of view but in the end they came
up with a Compromise. The Federalists agreed that a Bill of Rights
would be attached to the Constitution that protected an individual’s
personal rights. Even though Anti Federalists worried about the new
constitution enough states voted to approve it. The Constitution is
today the centerpiece of our government, and created an efficient
government. Another issue, slavery, which was not directly addressed
by the writers of the Constitution, would arise later in U.S. history.
The morality of Slavery became a bigger issue in the 19th century.
Some Northerners believed it was wrong, others in the South believed
slaves were an important investment and neccesary to the American
Economy. A temporary compromise about whether slavery could spread
outside the South was known as the Missouri Compromise. This
compromise set the 36º30' line in the Louisiana Territory as the line
which slavery could not go above. The territory above it except for
Missouri would be made free states, and below it were slave states. This
compromise would suffice until the U.S. began acquiring more
territory. The free states did not want to have less states than slave
states and vice versa, because they both wanted equal say in the
Senate. This became an issue again after Mexico lost the war with the
U.S. and had to give up land in the Southwest and West. Those for the
expansion of slavery into those new U.S. territories believed it was
there right to do so because those territories belonged to everyone. One
example backing this feeling was the Dred Scott case, which stated
that slaves are property, and there owners should be allowed to take
them wherever they wanted. They also saw the importance of slaves on
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [74] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – C
southern plantations. Without slaves working, the plantations would
be less efficient. If Congress banned slavery in the territories, they
might ban slavery altogether some day and their economy would
collapse.
Some of those who were against slavery viewed it as immoral and
wrong. They believed that if we allowed the expansion of slavery to the
territories that we could be violating the rights brought forth in the
Bill of rights. The rift between the North and South would lead to some
thinking that the idea of popular soveirgnty would be the best
solution. This gave the people in some of the territories the right to vote
on whether they would be a free state or a slave state. This process
however led to some bloody conflicts such as John Brown’s raids in
Kansas, in which he massacred settlers who were pro-slavery. It would
only be a precursor to what the Civil War would bring and arguing
about slavery in the territories brought that war closer. Eventually,
after the Civil War, slavery was abolished in all U.S. Territory.
As you can see, there is often two sides to every arguement. These
two conflicts however led us to the nation the United States is today.
As a result of the arguement supporting a strong government, we were
given a constitution and a Bill of Rights, which we follow today, and
the issue of expanding slavery brought up its morality which
eventually became a major factor in its abolition.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [75] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – D
No nation is without issues when it comes into existence. In the
early years of the United States, various controversial issues created a
division among the American people. Two such issues were the
purchase of the Louisiana Territory and the expansion of slavery into
the new territories. In both issues, the American people chose a side of
support or opposition to the issue in question.
In the early 1800’s the United States had the opportunity to
purchase a territory that would mean being able to “acquire an empire
of perhaps half the extent of the one we possessed.” (Document 5). As
there is with any decision, there were people who supported this
purchase, and people who opposed it. Document 4a describes that the
purchase of the Louisiana Territory would mean gaining control of the
city of New Orleans. New Orleans is at the opening to the Mississippi
River (Document 4b) and by controlling this port, means being able
to send out goods of 3/8 of our territory to pass to market. However,
there was a group that opposed the purchase of this land, calling it “a
worthless desert” (Document 6). The Federalist Party believed in a
strict interpretation of the Constitution, which means you can’t do
something if it isn’t written directly in the Constitution No where in
the Constitution does it say you can purchase land without the
consent of the Senate, so the Federalist party was opposed to this
purchase of the Louisiana Territory
Gaining land should be a gain for a growing country but for the
United States, it created a new issue: Should the new territories
include slavery. In document 8, Senator John C. Calhoun says that it
would be wrong to prohibit the Southerners from immigrating with
their property. They “shall not on that account be disfranchised of a
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [76] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – D
privilege possessed by all others.” On the other side of the debate, the
Republican Party took a position against expanding slavery into the
new territories. They argue that our founding father’s created this
country on the idea that “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law,” (Document 9) This means that
they deny any attempt to give legal existence to slavery in any
territory of the United States.
As you can see, in the early years of the United States, various
controversial issues created a division among the American people. Two
issues, the Louisian Purchase and the expansion of slavery into the
new territories, are examples of this. When the Louisiana territory was
being purchased, people wanted to gain control of New Orleans while
others thought of the land as a worthless desert. When slavery may
have expanded into new territories, people felt that it was their property
so they can or that slavery was wrong and should not expand. In both
cases, an issue divided the people and they had to debate over it.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [77] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – E
Various controversial issues divided the American people during the
early years of the Republic. Two big issues were the ratification of the
constitution and the expansion of slavery into the new territories.
During the discussion of these issues political parties like the
Federalists, Antifederalists, Republicans and Democrats tended to
take political sides on their stance of these issues.
During the very early years of the republic their was much
discussion in politics on whether states should or should not ratify the
Constitution. As states in Document 2 Federalists were generally for
the ratification of the Constitution. They supported one national
strong government instead of many weak state legislatures. Many
felt, like John Jay, that if the country was firmly united under one
government then foreign nations would want to earn our friendships
rather than provoke quarrels with us. Antifederalists felt differently
and were against the ratification of the Constitution because there was
no declaration of rights. They wanted a garuntee that state and
individual rights would be protected under the new Constitution so
they established the Bill of Rights as compromise. (Doc 3a & 3b)
Like the controversies over the ratification of the Constitution, the
two political parties, Republicans and Democrats, took sides on the
issue of slavery in the new territories. In Document 9 we have an
excerpt from the Republic Party Platform, showing their favor of
slavery in the new territories. Republicans believed that everyone has
the right to life, liberty and property, like the founding fathers once
stated. And to them slaves counted as property. Unlike the
Republicans, Democrats were against slavery in the new territories.
Because of the controversy Henry Clay came up with the Compromise
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [78] Vol. 2
Document-Based Essay—Practice Paper – E
of 1850 which allowd new territories applying to statehood to decide
the issue of slavery for themselves. (Doc 7b)
These to issues caused dissention in the countries, especially when
it came to political parties stands on the issue.
The response:
• Develops all aspects of the task with little depth for ratification of the Constitution and expansion of
slavery into the territories
• Is more descriptive than analytical (ratification of the Constitution: it was thought by some that the
weak, state-driven, difficult to amend Articles had to go; those in favor praised its strong, central
powers over the economy and military—sound principles that would make other countries want to align
with America; those against it argued that there was no guarantee of basic freedoms; supporters
compromised and added a list of basic freedoms to the Constitution; they got the support they needed;
expansion of slavery: those who opposed it cited the Constitution’s provision not to deprive individuals
of their liberty; Southerners felt their right to property would be violated if slavery was not allowed to
expand)
• Incorporates some relevant information from documents 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9
• Incorporates limited relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: from the beginning
America faced disagreements over what kind of national government should be established; the army
could not be effective if they did not have food or supplies; expansion of slavery: during the period of
Manifest Destiny in which the United States gradually expanded its western boundaries to the Pacific
Ocean the issue of slavery arose almost every time a territory wanted to become a state; if slavery was
kept out of new territories there might be more free states and slave states would be outnumbered;
slavery was an incredibly contentious issue that eventually sparked the Civil War)
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: Articles were
weak; Constitution gave Congress more power over states; expansion of slavery: slaves considered
property by slaveholders)
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction that states because the United
States was still learning how to provide justice for its people without overextending its power, matters
of contention were bound to arise and a conclusion that states controversy is inevitable but to move
forward both sides of an issue need to be considered
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 3. The integration of document information and
outside historical references supports the development of the ratification of the Constitution. While
Manifest Destiny is used to establish the premise for arguments over expansion of slavery into the
territories, that discussion is not as thorough and lacks support.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [79] Vol. 2
Practice Paper A—Score Level 3
The response:
Fails to develop the task; refers to the theme in a general way; includes mostly irrelevant facts, examples,
and details
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 0. Irrelevant disjointed statements are copied
from documents 3a, 3b, 5, and 7b. No understanding of the task is demonstrated.
Practice Paper B—Score Level 0
The response:
• Develops all aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and expansion of slavery into the
territories
• Is both descriptive and analytical (ratification of the Constitution: Articles led to too much state
power as states ignored the national government’s requests; Federalists wanted a written
constitution that backed a strong central government; both parties wrote about and campaigned for
their point of view but in the end they compromised; even though Antifederalists still worried about
the new constitution enough states voted to approve it; expansion of slavery: morality of slavery
became a bigger issue in the 19th century; slaves were important and without slaves plantations
would be less efficient; if Congress banned slavery in the territories they might ban slavery
altogether; some thought if it was allowed we would be violating the Bill of Rights; some thought
popular sovereignty was the best solution as it gave people in territories the right to vote on slavery)
• Incorporates relevant information from documents 1, 3, 7, and 8
• Incorporates relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: after having thirteen
independent colonial legislatures, a new governing body had to be established to unify the nation,
help win the war, and maintain independence; Articles aimed toward states rights; Antifederalists
thought proposed constitution gave too much power to a central government and was too much like
Britain’s rule; a Bill of Rights that protected individual rights would be attached to Constitution;
expansion of slavery: slavery not directly addressed by Constitution; Missouri Compromise set at
36 30' in Louisiana Territory as the line which slavery could not go above except for Missouri;
equality in the Senate became an issue again after Mexico lost the war with the United States and
had to give up land in the Southwest and West; Dred Scott case stated slaves were property meaning
owners could take them wherever they wanted; John Brown’s raids were a precursor to what the
Civil War would bring and arguing about slavery in territories would bring that war closer)
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution:
would give central government right to tax states and power to regulate interstate trade;
Antifederalists said Constitution did not protect individual rights; expansion of slavery: some
Northerners believed slavery wrong; some thought popular sovereignty would be best solution)
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction that states
ratification of the Constitution and expansion of slavery into the territories were important conflicts
in United States history that were resolved, one by compromise and one by bloodshed, and a
conclusion that states that conflict over ratification led to a Constitution and a Bill of Rights we
follow today and the conflict over expansion of slavery into the territories led to the abolition of
slavery
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 4. The response is well developed but not
thoroughly developed. Citing slavery as an issue not directly addressed by the writers of the
Constitution serves as an effective transition to a discussion of the complicated issue of slavery in the
territories. The inclusion of more relevant outside information would have added depth to the
explanation of different perspectives on ratification of the Constitution.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [80] Vol. 2
Practice Paper C—Score Level 4
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [81] Vol. 2
The response:
• Develops some aspects of the task in some depth for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory and
expansion of slavery into the territories
• Is primarily descriptive (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: it gave us the opportunity to acquire
an empire of perhaps half the extent of the one we possessed; controlling New Orleans meant being
able to send goods of 3/8ths of our territory to market; the opposition thought it was a worthless
desert; expansion of slavery: Senator Calhoun said it would be wrong to prohibit Southerners from
immigrating with their property; the opposition believed that any attempt to give legal existence to
slavery in any territory of the United States should be denied)
• Incorporates limited relevant information from documents 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9
• Presents little relevant outside information (purchase of the Louisiana Territory: the Federalist
Party believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution)
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (purchase of the Louisiana Territory:
Constitution does not say you can purchase land without consent of Senate; expansion of slavery:
Republican Party against expanding slavery into new territories)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction that states no nation is
without issues when it comes into existence and a conclusion that discusses how the Louisiana
Territory and expansion of slavery into the territories created a division among the American people
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 2. A basic understanding and application of
document information is demonstrated; however, a lack of explanation, especially in the development
of historical circumstances, weakens the effort. Brief document quotations form the basis of the
response.
Practice Paper D—Score Level 2
The response:
• Minimally addresses some aspects of the task for ratification of the Constitution and expansion of
slavery into the territories
• Is descriptive (ratification of the Constitution: Federalists supported one national strong government
instead of many weak state legislatures; expansion of slavery: Compromise of 1850 allowed new
territories applying for statehood to decide the issue of slavery for themselves)
• Includes minimal information from documents 2, 3, and 7
• Presents little relevant outside information (ratification of the Constitution: Antifederalists wanted a
guarantee that state and individual rights would be protected under the new Constitution so they
established the Bill of Rights as a compromise; expansion of slavery: Henry Clay came up with the
Compromise of 1850)
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details (ratification of the Constitution: Federalists
generally for it; Antifederalists against it because no declaration of rights); includes inaccuracies
(expansion of slavery: Republican Party favored slavery in new territories; Republicans felt slaves
counted as property; Democrats against slavery in the new territories)
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; includes an introduction and a one-sentence
conclusion that state political parties tended to take different sides on controversial issues
Conclusion: Overall, the response fits the criteria for Level 1. A basic understanding of the task is
demonstrated in the discussion of the ratification of the Constitution. Historical circumstances are not
addressed for either issue. Arguments concerning the expansion of slavery are confused and show no
understanding of this issue.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [82] Vol. 2
Practice Paper E—Score Level 1
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 [83] Vol. 2
United States History and Government Specifications
August 2013
Part I
Multiple-Choice Questions by Standard
Standard Question Numbers
1—United States and New York History
4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27,
29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, 46, 48
2—World History 23, 34, 36, 45
3—Geography 1, 39, 43, 47
4—Economics 2, 15, 20, 21, 24, 31, 41, 44, 49
5—Civics, Citizenship, and Government 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 25, 28, 40, 50
Parts II and III by Theme and Standard
Theme STANDARDS
Thematic Essay
Foreign Policy; Presidential
Decisions and Actions;
Places and Regions
Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:
United States and New York
History; World History;
Geography; Economics;
Civics, Citizenship, and
Government
Document-based Essay
Citizenship; Civic Values;
Constitutional Principles;
Change; Government;
Presidential Decisions and
Actions; Reform
Movements
Standards 1, 3, 4, and 5: United
States and New York History;
Geography; Economics;
Civics, Citizenship, and
Government
Notes:
Part I and Part II scoring information is found in Volume 1 of the Rating Guide.
Part III scoring information is found in Volume 2 of the Rating Guide.
U.S. Hist. & Gov. Rating Guide – Aug. ’13 Vol. 2
Submitting Teacher Evaluations of the Test to the Department
Suggestions and feedback from teachers provide an important contribution to the test
development process. The Department provides an online evaluation form for State assess-
ments. It contains spaces for teachers to respond to several specific questions and to make
suggestions. Instructions for completing the evaluation form are as follows:
1. Go to http://www.forms2.nysed.gov/emsc/osa/exameval/reexameval.cfm
.
2. Select the test title.
3. Complete the required demographic fields.
4. Complete each evaluation question and provide comments in the space provided.
5. Click the SUBMIT button at the bottom of the page to submit the completed form.
The Chart for Determining the Final Examination Score for the August 2013
Regents Examination in United States History and Government will be posted on
the Department’s web site at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/
on the day
of the examination. Conversion charts provided for the previous administrations
of the Unites States History and Government examination must NOT be used
to determine students’ final scores for this administration.
