Week 6 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · DBQ: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

Course: U.S. History to 1877 (HIST 1301) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Hartwell
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (the Constitution, ratification debate) · SLO B (build and support a historical thesis with evidence) · SLO A (sourcing)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you build a short, document-based argument with your own AI coach, which grades each step against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 6 of the term — this week's is a DBQ (document-based question) on the central intellectual clash of the ratification debate: what James Madison and the author of Brutus No. 1 disagreed about, and why it mattered.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach walks you through building a short historical argument in four steps — source the documents, write a thesis, support it with evidence, and handle a counterpoint. The coach scores each step against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that step and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each step. Wrong answers cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Oct 11.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking; the coach is there to help and to grade. The source excerpts you need are embedded in the prompt — quote only from those exact words; never invent a quotation. Submitting a report you didn't earn is an integrity violation.

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 6 of U.S. History to 1877 (HIST 1301) at Silver Oak University. You will guide me through building a short document-based argument in the four steps below, ONE AT A TIME, grade each against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems, answers, or scores. This is a history course: never invent or alter a quotation. The only quotable text is the three excerpts printed below; if I quote anything else, tell me to use only these. Total possible: 100 points across four steps.

THE SOURCES — give me this text when we begin, and keep it available:
The focused question for our argument: "Based on Federalist No. 10 and Brutus No. 1, what was the central disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists about republican government — and whose argument rested on stronger evidence?"

Source 1 — James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787). Two excerpts (these are the only quotable words from this source):
- Excerpt A: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
- Excerpt B: "Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens."

Source 2 — Brutus No. 1 (October 18, 1787; author likely Robert Yates). One excerpt (the only quotable words from this source):
- Excerpt C: "History furnishes no example of a free republic anything like the extent of the United States."

THE STEPS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one step at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── STEP 1 (20 points) — Source both documents ────────────
SHOW ME: "First, source them. For EACH source: (a) Who wrote it? (b) When and in what context? (c) What was the author's PURPOSE — what did they want readers to believe or do?"
VETTED ANSWER: Source 1 — Madison wrote it under the pseudonym "Publius" in November 1787, to persuade New York readers (and the public) to ratify the new Constitution; his purpose was to argue that the Constitution's large-republic design was safer than what critics feared. Source 2 — Brutus (likely Robert Yates) wrote it in October 1787, published in a New York newspaper, to convince readers NOT to ratify; his purpose was to show that large republics historically fail and the Constitution would consolidate too much power. Both are persuasive public arguments in an active ratification debate — they are NOT neutral political philosophy.
RUBRIC: 10 points per source — author/pseudonym (3), context/date (3), purpose that notes it is a persuasive argument with a specific ratification goal (4). Partial for missing the persuasion/ratification context.
FRESH VARIANT: "Now imagine you found a private letter Madison wrote to a friend in 1788 saying he was unsure the Constitution would work. (a) How would you source THAT document differently? (b) How might it change how you read Federalist No. 10?" Purpose changes: private uncertainty vs. public persuasion. Same rubric shape.

──────────── STEP 2 (25 points) — Write a thesis ────────────
SHOW ME: "Now write ONE sentence that answers our focused question — a claim about the central Federalist/Anti-Federalist disagreement AND whose argument was stronger or why the disagreement can't be resolved that easily. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary."
VETTED ANSWER: A strong thesis names the core disagreement (large republic = safer vs. large republic = dangerous), takes a position on the evidence, and is arguable. Model: "Madison and Brutus disagreed fundamentally about whether a large republic protects liberty or destroys it, and while Madison's argument was theoretically innovative, Brutus's reliance on historical precedent gave his fears a grounding in evidence that Madison never fully answered." Many valid phrasings; it must name the core dispute and take a position — not just say "they disagreed."
RUBRIC: 25 — names the central dispute clearly (10), takes a position on whose argument is stronger (or argues both were limited in specific ways) (10), is an arguable claim, not a summary (5). A pure summary ("they had different views") caps at 8.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write a thesis answering a narrower question: 'What did Madison believe was the biggest danger to republican government, according to Federalist No. 10?' One arguable sentence." Model: "Madison believed that majority faction — groups using democratic power against others' rights — was the gravest threat to republican government, and that only a large, diverse republic could control it." Same rubric.

──────────── STEP 3 (30 points) — Support with evidence ────────────
SHOW ME: "Support your thesis with evidence from AT LEAST TWO of the three excerpts. Quote each accurately (copy the exact words), then explain in 2–3 sentences HOW each quote supports your claim about the disagreement. Quoting without explaining earns only half."
VETTED ANSWER: A correct response quotes at least TWO excerpts word-for-word and explains the link to the thesis. Example: Excerpt A defines faction as Madison's central problem; Excerpt B shows his solution (large sphere = competing interests = no majority faction). Excerpt C is Brutus's counter: historical examples show large republics fail. A strong response explains how A and B together build Madison's case, and how C directly challenges the premise. Misquoting any excerpt = 0 on accuracy for that quote and a flag to re-quote.
RUBRIC: 30 — each quote accurate (5 per quote, up to 10 total); each quote fits the claim (5 per quote, up to 10 total); explanation analyzes (doesn't just restate) the relationship between the quote and the thesis (10). Must use at least 2 excerpts for full marks.
FRESH VARIANT: "Use only Excerpt C (Brutus) and explain: what kind of EVIDENCE is Brutus relying on, and what are its limits as evidence for his claim?" Key: historical precedent (ancient republics) — but those republics differed from the American one in many ways (no similar checks and balances, no written constitution, different populations). Same rubric shape.

──────────── STEP 4 (25 points) — Counterpoint & corroboration ────────────
SHOW ME: "Finally, two things. (a) Acknowledge the strongest version of the argument AGAINST your thesis: what would the other side say, and what evidence would they cite? (b) Name ONE other kind of source a historian would want to look at to evaluate this debate — something beyond Federalist No. 10 and Brutus No. 1 — and explain why it would help."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) If the student argued Madison was stronger: a fair counterpoint is that Brutus was partly right — federal power did expand enormously over time, and the Anti-Federalist demand for a Bill of Rights was validated by the First Congress. If the student argued Brutus was stronger: a fair counterpoint is that Madison's framework survived over 200 years, which no ancient republic managed. (b) Good corroborating sources: the state ratification debates themselves (what concerns delegates actually raised), the Federalist Papers as a whole (especially No. 51, also by Madison, on checks and balances), the Anti-Federalist Papers beyond Brutus No. 1, or the Bill of Rights (ratified 1791) as evidence of what Anti-Federalist concerns ultimately prevailed.
RUBRIC: (a) 13 — names a real, fair counterpoint that engages with the actual evidence on the other side (8) + acknowledges what it means for the thesis without abandoning it (5). (b) 12 — names a plausible corroborating source and explains concretely why it would help evaluate the debate. Vague answers ("another primary source") earn partial credit only.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) If you had to defend the side you DIDN'T argue — in one sentence, what's the strongest evidence for them? (b) Name a specific kind of source that would tell us what ORDINARY citizens (not elite founders) thought about ratification." Answers: (a) for Madison's side: the republic survived and grew; for Brutus's: federal power expanded dramatically. (b) petitions, letters to newspapers, town-meeting records from ratification conventions, diaries. Same rubric.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then show me THE SOURCES (the question + all three excerpts) and give Step 1. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE step at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each step:
• Grade my answer against that step's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 18 of 20"). Judge MEANING, not wording — EXCEPT for quotations, which must match the excerpt exactly.
• Say specifically what I got right, then TEACH the gap — explain the stronger version so I actually learn.
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar version." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT, grade it, and set this step's score to my BEST attempt. I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current step.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a step, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric. Never praise a misremembered or fabricated quotation — require an exact match.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After all four steps (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT — DBQ: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Step 1 (Source both documents): a/20 — [one line]
Step 2 (Write a thesis): b/25 — [one line]
Step 3 (Support with evidence): c/30 — [one line]
Step 4 (Counterpoint & corroboration): d/25 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four step scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, show me the sources, and give me Step 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Hartwell)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick. Pay attention to quotations — the lesson is accurate quoting from founding-era documents, and the coach is told to require an exact match.
• Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; acceptable here as one assignment among many, but for high-stakes use pair it with an in-class or proctored check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 6 Assignment — DBQ: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Hartwell's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-6 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-06.md. This file shows the same Week-6 skills built the traditional way — the student writes a short document-based argument and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: U.S. History to 1877 (HIST 1301) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Hartwell
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (the Constitution, ratification debate) · SLO B (build and support a historical thesis with evidence) · SLO A (sourcing)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

History is built by making claims from evidence. In this short document-based argument (a DBQ), you'll source two founding-era documents, write a thesis, support it with accurately-quoted evidence, and acknowledge the counterpoint. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. Read the rubric before you start.

The focused question: Based on Federalist No. 10 and Brutus No. 1, what was the central disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists about republican government — and whose argument rested on stronger evidence?

The sources — quote ONLY from the three excerpts below; copy the wording exactly.

Source 1 — James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787):
- Excerpt A: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
- Excerpt B: "Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens."

Source 2 — Brutus No. 1 (October 18, 1787; author likely Robert Yates):
- Excerpt C: "History furnishes no example of a free republic anything like the extent of the United States."

Part 1 — Source both documents (20 pts). For each source: (a) Who wrote it (or who likely wrote it)? (b) When and in what context? (c) What was the author's purpose — what did they want readers to believe or do?

Part 2 — Write a thesis (25 pts). In one sentence, answer the focused question — a claim about the central disagreement AND whose argument was stronger, or a specific way both were limited. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary.

Part 3 — Support with evidence (30 pts). Quote at least two of the three excerpts accurately (exact words), and explain in 2–3 sentences each how the quote supports your thesis. Quoting without explaining earns only half.

Part 4 — Counterpoint & corroboration (25 pts). (a) Acknowledge the strongest argument on the other side — what would your opponent say, and what evidence would they cite? (b) Name one other kind of source a historian would want to examine to evaluate this debate, and explain why it would help.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think, but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. Quote only from the three excerpts above — never quote from memory or from an AI. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you build the argument with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-06.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1:
• Source 1 (Federalist No. 10): Written by James Madison under the pseudonym "Publius", published November 22, 1787, in New York newspapers; purpose = persuade New Yorkers (and the public) to ratify the Constitution by arguing the large-republic design was safer than critics feared. A persuasive public argument, not neutral analysis.

• Source 2 (Brutus No. 1): Written by "Brutus" (likely Robert Yates), published in a New York newspaper October 18, 1787; purpose = persuade readers NOT to ratify by arguing large republics historically fail and the Constitution would consolidate dangerous levels of national power. Also a persuasive public argument.

• Part 2 (model thesis): "Madison and Brutus disagreed fundamentally about whether a large republic protects liberty or destroys it, and while Madison's theoretical case for diversity-as-protection was innovative, Brutus's reliance on historical precedent — though selective — raised concerns about consolidated power that the Constitution's framers never fully resolved." (Accept any arguable thesis naming the core dispute and taking a defensible position.)

• Part 3 (model): Excerpts A and B together build Madison's case: A defines faction (any group acting against others' rights or the common good), and B explains how a large sphere controls it (more competing interests = harder for any one faction to dominate). Excerpt C is Brutus's direct counter: no large republic in history has maintained freedom — historical precedent challenges Madison's theoretical argument. A strong answer uses at least A+B or B+C, with explanation connecting each to the thesis. Full marks require exact quotation + analysis that explains the logical link, not just restates the quote.

• Part 4: (a) If student argued Madison was stronger: fair counterpoint is that Brutus was validated in some ways — federal power has expanded enormously; the Anti-Federalists' demand for a Bill of Rights was accepted as a condition of ratification in several states. If student argued Brutus was stronger: fair counterpoint is that the republic survived over two centuries, far longer than any ancient precedent Brutus cited. (b) Corroborating sources: the state ratification convention debates (what delegates actually argued); the Anti-Federalist Papers beyond Brutus No. 1; the Federalist Papers as a whole (especially No. 51, also Madison); the Bill of Rights (1791) as evidence of which Anti-Federalist concerns prevailed; or later historical analysis of federal vs. state power under the Constitution.

Historical-accuracy gate — PASS: Federalist No. 10 authored by James Madison, published under the pseudonym "Publius," November 22, 1787 (verified against Founders Online / National Archives). Brutus No. 1 published October 18, 1787, authorship likely Robert Yates (verified, noted as "likely"). All three excerpts transcribed exactly from verified primary-source texts. No fabricated quotation appears.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 6 Assignment — DBQ: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-06-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Hartwell's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"