Federalist No. 68

Federalist No. 68
Title	Federalist No. 68
Author	Alexander Hamilton (pub. pseud. "Publius")
Publication	The Federalist Papers
Date	March 12, 1788
Subject	Ratification of the United States Constitution; method of presidential election
Language	English

Federalist No. 68

Federalist No. 68 is an essay arguing for the method of selecting the President proposed by the Constitutional Convention and explaining why its design would secure independence from foreign influence and promote deliberative choice. Written as part of the collective essays advocating ratification, it situates the proposed electing mechanism within the debates among proponents such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and opponents like Patrick Henry and participants including delegates from Philadelphia Convention states such as Virginia and New York. The essay addresses concerns raised during state ratifying conventions in places like Massachusetts and Virginia Ratifying Convention while responding to contemporary critiques by writers in periodicals such as the New York Packet.

Background and Authorship

The essay is attributed to Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym "Publius", joining co-authors James Madison and John Jay in the Federalist project first serialized in newspapers such as the Independent Journal and the Daily Advertiser. Composed amid heated public debates in 1787 and 1788, it follows earlier Federalist contributions defending the structure devised at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hamilton wrote with awareness of prominent critics including George Mason, Samuel Adams, and pamphleteers associated with the Anti-Federalist Papers, referencing the climate of state ratifying conventions in Massachusetts Ratifying Convention and New York Ratifying Convention. The essay engages the design of the presidential selection mechanism debated alongside proposals such as election by Congress of the Confederation or direct vote promoted by figures like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Text and Key Passages

The core passage describes a system whereby electors chosen by state legislatures or by popular appointment would assemble in their respective state capitals—a method Hamilton contrasts with selection by a single body such as Congress of the United States or by direct popular ballot advocated by some in Virginia Convention. He famously articulates concern about foreign influence, invoking historical actors like Charles II and events such as the Glorious Revolution as examples of foreign intrigue and monarchy-driven manipulation. Hamilton praises an electoral design that would prevent "tumult and disorder" similar to episodes associated with the Whig Party era in Great Britain and to crises remembered from the Articles of Confederation period. The essay’s argument hinges on procedural descriptions—electors assembling separately by state, deliberation free from immediate factional pressure, and a buffer against foreign courts such as the Court of St James's—with explicit references to the practices of European polities including the Holy Roman Empire and the elective monarchies of Poland.

Analysis and Interpretation

Scholars parse Hamilton’s text through contexts involving figures like James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, and debates over separation of powers debated by commentators such as The Federal Farmer and Centinel. Interpretive lines focus on Hamilton’s dual concerns: insulating the executive from foreign influence exemplified by the Treaty of Paris (1783) aftermath, and constructing a deliberative institution modeled against perceived weaknesses of the Confederation Congress. Legal historians connect passages to later jurisprudence involving the Supreme Court of the United States and constitutional interpretation advanced by justices such as John Marshall and Joseph Story. Political theorists compare Hamilton’s architecture to contemporary mechanisms in systems like the Electoral College (United States) and electoral practices in the United Kingdom and France, while rhetorical analysts examine how Hamilton engages opponents including Brutus (anti-Federalist) and Cato (Anti-Federalist) through strategic allusion.

Influence on the Electoral College

Federalist No. 68 has been repeatedly cited in discussions of the Electoral College (United States) formation and function, alongside provisions in Article II of the United States Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legislators such as John Rutledge and delegates like Elbridge Gerry debated competing proposals that informed the final clause Hamilton defends. Later political leaders including Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln operated within the institution Hamilton described. Constitutional scholars reference the essay when assessing reforms considered during the Progressive Era and proposals culminating in the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution and scholarly debates about abolition or modification during the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Historical Reception and Criticism

Contemporary reception split between Federalist-aligned outlets such as the New York Packet and Anti-Federalist presses led by writers like Mercy Otis Warren and Richard Henry Lee. Critics alleged the electing mechanism could produce aristocratic selection favoring elites such as Alexander Hamilton feared by Patrick Henry and George Mason. Perceived vulnerabilities to cabal and intrigue were invoked by pamphleteers including Samuel Cooper and contributors to the Richmond Enquirer. Over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, historians such as Henry Adams, Charles A. Beard, and legal scholars like Akhil Reed Amar both praised and critiqued Hamilton’s forecasting of foreign influence, while commentators during the Watergate scandal and debates after the Bush v. Gore controversy drew on No. 68’s language to debate the College’s resilience.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

The essay endures in constitutional scholarship cited alongside the works of The Federalist Papers authors and in judicial opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States. Debates over contemporary reform advocates such as proponents of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and critics including commentators in The New York Times and The Atlantic often return to Hamilton’s reasoning about independence from foreign influence and deliberative selection. Modern political scientists referencing institutions like Harvard University and Yale University examine Federalist No. 68 in courses on constitutional law and American political development alongside archival materials from the Library of Congress and the National Archives and Records Administration. Its legacy persists in legislative proposals, public debate, and scholarly literature engaging the continuing evolution of presidential selection in the United States.

Category:The Federalist Papers