Week 7 Discussion — Above Party, or a Party's Words? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

In 1796 Washington wrote that he would "warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally." In 1801, after a bitter election, Jefferson told the country "We are all republicans: we are all federalists." This week you learned who wrote each document, when, and how each reached its audience, and those facts are not in question; what careful readers still argue about is how to read each document's relation to the parties of its day.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Washington's Farewell Address warns against the spirit of party, yet Hamilton, a leader of the Federalist Party, rewrote its draft, and it was published as the two parties fought over Jay's Treaty and over Britain and France. Is the address best read as advice above party, or as a document that also served one party's side? Take a position, support it with at least one thing this week's evidence shows (the address's sourcing, one of its two pinned fragments, or the foreign-policy quarrel around it), and state the strongest case for the other reading as fairly as its best defender would.

Option B: Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, delivered in 1801 after the Alien and Sedition Acts and a hard-fought election, says "We are all republicans: we are all federalists." Is the sentence best read as a sincere call to reconcile the two parties, or as a winner's claim that the losing party's principles belonged to him too? Take a position, ground it in sourcing and close reading of the pinned fragment, including its small letters, and state the strongest opposing reading fairly.

Neither option asks who wrote these words or when; the course states those facts plainly, and "entangling alliances with none" stays Jefferson's phrase of 1801. Each option asks a question of reading that careful readers of the same evidence still answer differently. Keep both options in the 1790s and 1801: neither is a question about present-day parties or politics. Pick the option you care about, and make your case.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say how you read the Farewell Address's relation to the parties, support it with one thing this week's evidence shows, and state the strongest case for the other reading; for Option B, say how you read Jefferson's sentence, ground it in sourcing and the pinned fragment, and state the strongest opposing reading.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (first party system, Federalist Party, Democratic-Republicans, neutrality, Jay's Treaty, published address, spirit of party, Alien and Sedition Acts, election of 1800, inaugural address) correctly.
• Quote only the course's pinned fragments, word for word, with the document and its date.
• End with one plain sentence that names what your evidence shows and what it does not.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
• Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep present-day parties, politicians, and controversies out of your examples.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: state a stronger version of the reading the poster argued against, point to a place where the poster gave "entangling alliances with none" to Washington or blurred the Federalists of 1788 with the later party, or ask what the poster's claim would need from the evidence that this week's documents do not supply. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B and read Jefferson's sentence as mainly a call to reconcile, though not only that. It comes from his First Inaugural Address, delivered in 1801 and printed as version III on Founders Online, where the sentence reads "We are all republicans: we are all federalists." The small letters suggest he is naming shared principles rather than two parties. A reader on the other side would say the winner was claiming the losers' ground as his own, and I concede that he spoke right after his party had beaten the one that passed the Sedition Act. In one plain sentence: the address shows the public aims of the winner of 1800, not how the losing party felt.

Notice how it sources the address, quotes the pinned fragment word for word, concedes part of the other side, keeps the claim inside what the address shows, and ends in one plain sentence. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com