essay 69

• Pages using DynamicPageList3 dplreplace parser function
• Federalism tracking
• The Federalist Papers

Ballotpedia features 514,470 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion.

Information about voting

• What's on my ballot?
• Where do I vote?
• How do I register to vote?
• How do I request a ballot?
• When do I vote?
• When are polls open?
• Who represents me?

2024 Elections

• Presidential election
• Presidential candidates
• Congressional elections
• Ballot measures
• State executive elections
• State legislative elections
• State judge elections
• Local elections
• School board elections

2025 Elections

• State executives
• State legislatures
• State judges
• Municipal officials
• School boards
• Election legislation tracking
• State trifectas
• State triplexes
• Redistricting
• Pivot counties
• State supreme court partisanship
• Polling indexes

Public Policy

• Administrative state
• Criminal justice policy
• Education policy
• Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
• Unemployment insurance
• Work requirements
• Policy in the states

Information for candidates

• Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
• How do I run for office?
• How do I update a page?
• Election results
• Send us candidate contact info

Get Engaged

• Donate to Ballotpedia
• Report an error
• Newsletters
• Ballotpedia podcast
• Ballotpedia Boutique
• Media inquiries
• Premium research services
• 2024 Elections calendar
• 2024 Presidential election
• Biden Administration
• Recall elections
• Ballotpedia News

SITE NAVIGATION

• Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot
• 2024 Congressional elections
• 2024 State executive elections
• 2024 State legislative elections
• 2024 State judge elections
• 2024 Local elections
• 2024 Ballot measures
• Upcoming elections
• 2025 Statewide primary dates
• 2025 State executive elections
• 2025 State legislative elections
• 2025 Local elections
• 2025 Ballot measures
• Cabinet officials
• Executive orders and actions
• Key legislation
• Judicial nominations
• White House senior staff
• U.S. President
• U.S. Congress
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Federal courts
• State government
• Municipal government
• Election policy
• Running for office
• Ballotpedia's weekly podcast
• About Ballotpedia
• Editorial independence
• Job opportunities
• News and events
• Privacy policy
• Disclaimers

The Federalist (Dawson)/69

This is a selection from a particular edition of The Federalist .

To navigate through all available editions, please use the table of contents .

The widely accepted number for this essay is now 70. However, the publisher of this edition did not use that numbering system, and instead numbered this essay 69. If you are looking for the essay commonly called 69, go to Federalist No. 69 .

​ To the People of the State of New York :

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the Government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a Government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad Government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients, which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the Convention?

The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the ​ republican sense are, first, a due dependence on the People; secondly, a due responsibility.

Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles, and for the justness of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive, and a numerous Legislature. They have, with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand; while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the People, and to secure their privileges and interests.

That unity is conducive to energy, will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch, will generally characterize the proceedings of one man, in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates, of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and coöperation of others, in the capacity of Counsellors to him. Of the first, the two Consuls of Rome may serve as an example; of the last, we shall find examples in the Constitutions of several of the States. New York and New Jersey, if I recollect right, are the only States which have intrusted the Executive authority wholly to single men. [1] Both these methods of destroying the unity of the Executive have their partisans; but the votaries of an Executive Council are the most numerous. They are both liable, if not to equal, to similar ​ objections, and may in most lights be examined in conjunction.

The experience of other Nations will afford little instruction on this head. As far, however, as it teaches anything, it teaches us not to be enamored of plurality in the Executive. We have seen that the Achæans, on an experiment of two Prætors, were induced to abolish one. The Roman history records many instances of mischiefs to the Republic from the dissensions between the Consuls, and between the Military Tribunes, who were at times substituted for the Consuls. But it gives us no specimens of any peculiar advantages derived to the State from the circumstance of the plurality of those magistrates. That the dissensions between them were not more frequent or more fatal, is a matter of astonishment, until we advert to the singular position in which the Republic was almost continually placed, and to the prudent policy pointed out by the circumstances of the State, and pursued by the Consuls, of making a division of the Government between them. The Patricians engaged in a perpetual struggle with the Plebeians for the preservation of their ancient authorities and dignities; the Consuls, who were generally chosen out of the former body, were commonly united by the personal interest they had in the defence of the privileges of their order. In addition to this motive of union, after the arms of the Republic had considerably expanded the bounds of its empire, it became an established custom with the Consuls to divide the administration between themselves by lot one; of them remaining at Rome to govern the city and its environs; the other taking the command in the more distant provinces. This expedient must, no doubt, have had great influence in preventing those collisions and rivalships which might otherwise have embroiled the peace of the Republic.

But quitting the dim light of historical research, ​ attaching ourselves purely to the dictates of reason and good sense, we shall discover much greater cause to reject than to approve the idea of plurality in the Executive, under any modification whatever.

Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the Supreme Executive Magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the Government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the Magistracy.

Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have ​ credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice in the human character.

Upon the principles of a free Government, inconveniences from the source just mentioned must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the Legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them into the constitution of the Executive. It is here too, that they may be most pernicious. In the Legislature, promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in that department of the Government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check excesses in the majority. When a resolution too is once taken, the opposition must be at an end. That resolution is a law, and resistance to it punishable. But no favorable circumstances palliate, or atone for the disadvantages of dissension in the Executive department. Here, they are pure and unmixed. There is no point at which they cease to operate. They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure to which they relate, from the first step to the final conclusion of it. They constantly counteract those qualities in the Executive, which are the most necessary ingredients in its composition,—vigor and expedition; and this without any counterbalancing good. In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the Executive is the bulwark of the National security, everything would be to be apprehended from its plurality.

It must be confessed, that these observations apply with principal weight to the first case supposed, that is, to a plurality of Magistrates of equal dignity and authority; a scheme, the advocates for which are not ​ likely to form a numerous sect; but they apply, though not with equal, yet with considerable weight to the project of a Council, whose concurrence is made constitutionally necessary to the operations of the ostensible Executive. An artful cabal in that Council would be able to distract and to enervate the whole system of administration. If no such cabal should exist, the mere diversity of views and opinions would alone be sufficient to tincture the exercise of the Executive authority with a spirit of habitual feebleness and dilatoriness.

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults, and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds, to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine, on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any National miscarriage or misfortune, are sometimes so complicated, that, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce, to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

​ "I was overruled by my Council. The Council were so divided in their opinions, that it was impossible to obtain any better resolution on the point." These and similar pretexts are constantly at hand, whether true or false. And who is there, that will either take the trouble or incur the odium, of a strict scrutiny into the secret springs of the transaction? Should there be found a citizen zealous enough to undertake the unpromising task, if there happen to be collusion between the parties concerned, how easy it is to clothe the circumstances with so much ambiguity, as to render it uncertain what was the precise conduct of any of those parties?

In the single instance in which the Governor of this State is coupled with a Council, that is, in the appointment to offices, we have seen the mischiefs of it in the view now under consideration. Scandalous appointments to important offices have been made. Some cases, indeed, have been so flagrant that all parties have agreed in the impropriety of the thing. When inquiry has been made, the blame has been laid by the Governor on the members of the Council; who, on their part, have charged it upon his nomination; while the People remain altogether at a loss to determine, by whose influence their interests have been committed to hands so unqualified, and so manifestly improper. In tenderness to individuals, I forbear to descend to particulars.

It is evident from these considerations, that the plurality of the Executive tends to deprive the People of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power:— First , the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and, secondly , the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to ​ their removal from office, or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it.

In England, the King is a perpetual Magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that Kingdom, than to annex to the King a constitutional Council, who may be responsible to the Nation for the advice they give. Without this, there would be no responsibility whatever in the Executive department, an idea inadmissible in a free Government. But even there, the King is not bound by the resolutions of his Council, though they are answerable for the advice they give. He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office; and may observe or disregard the counsel given to him, at his sole discretion.

But in a Republic, where every Magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office, the reason, which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a Council, not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the Chief Magistrate; which serves in some degree as a hostage to the National justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself.

The idea of a Council to the Executive, which has so generally obtained in the State Constitutions, has been derived from that maxim of republican jealousy which considers power as safer in the hands of a number of men than of a single man. If the maxim should be admitted to be applicable to the case, I should contend that the advantage on that side would not ​ counterbalance the numerous disadvantages on the opposite side. But I do not think the rule at all applicable to the Executive power. I clearly concur in opinion, in this particular, with a writer whom the celebrated Junius pronounces to be "deep, solid, and ingenious," that "the Executive power is more easily confined when it is one ;" [2] that it is far more safe there should be a single object for the jealousy and watchfulness of the People; and, in a word, that all multiplication of the Executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty.

A little consideration will satisfy us, that the species of security sought for in the multiplication of the Executive, is unattainable. Numbers must be so great as to render combination difficult, or they are rather a source of danger than of security. The united credit and influence of several individuals must be more formidable to liberty, than the credit and influence of either of them separately. When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse, and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who, from the very circumstance of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others. The Decemvirs of Rome, whose name denotes their number, [3] were more to be dreaded in their usurpation than any one of them would have been. No person would think of proposing an Executive much more numerous than that body; from six to a dozen have been suggested for the number of the Council. The extreme of these numbers, is not too great for an easy combination; and from such a combination, America would have more to fear, than ​ from the ambition of any single individual. A Council to a Magistrate, who is himself responsible for what he does, are generally nothing better than a clog upon his good intentions; are often the instruments and accomplices of his bad; and are almost always a cloak to his faults.

I forbear to dwell upon the subject of expense; though it be evident that if the Council should be numerous enough to answer the principal end aimed at by the institution, the salaries of the members, who must be drawn from their homes to reside at the seat of Government, would form an item in the catalogue of public expenditures, too serious to be incurred for an object of equivocal utility. I will only add, that, prior to the appearance of the Constitution, I rarely met with an intelligent man from any of the States, who did not admit, as the result of experience, that the UNITY of the Executive of this State was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our Constitution.

• ↑ New York has no Council except for the single purpose of appointing to offices; New Jersey has a Council whom the Governor may consult. But I think, from the terms of the Constitution, their resolutions do not bind him.— Publius .
• ↑ De Lolme .— Publius .
• ↑ Ten.— Publius .

• Headers applying DefaultSort key

Navigation menu

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Main Reading Room

Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History

Full text of the federalist papers.

• Introduction
• Federalist Nos. 1-10
• Federalist Nos. 11-20
• Federalist Nos. 21-30
• Federalist Nos. 31-40
• Federalist Nos. 41-50
• Federalist Nos. 51-60
• Federalist Nos. 61-70
• Federalist Nos. 71-80
• Federalist Nos. 81-85
• Related Digital Resources
• External Websites
• Print Resources

History, Humanities & Social Sciences : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-4pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).

The Federalist , commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal . They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist .

The electronic text of The Federalist used here was compiled for Project Gutenberg by scholars who drew on many available versions of the papers.

One printed edition of the text is The Federalist , edited by Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan University Press, 1961). Cooke's introduction provides background information on the printing history of The Federalist; the information provided above comes in part from his work.

This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. Any irregularities with regard to grammar, syntax, spelling, or punctuation are as they exist in the original e-text archives.

Table of Contents

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Federalist Nos. 1-10 >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 10:16 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers

Federalist No. 69

In Federalist 69, Hamilton responds to the charge by the Constitution’s opponents that the president is an American king. He compares the powers of the “president of confederated America” (interesting phrasing) under the Constitution with those of the king of Great Britain and the governor of New York. He chooses the latter for several reasons. First, the essays of Publius are written during the pendency of the New York and Virginia ratifying conventions and were obviously intended in the first instance to influence those closely-fought skirmishes.

Second, Hamilton was deeply involved in state politics as a member of the downstate faction that favored both the Constitution and, later, the Federalist Party. Though it is hard to believe today, New York City politically was, in many ways, a Tory town. It was a hotbed of Loyalist sentiment during the Revolutionary War, so much so that the British made it their headquarters. Hamilton was intimately familiar with the operation of his state’s government and, given the emerging significance of the city and state, would  find New York’s system more important than others’.

Third, the governor of New York was a rather strong chief executive compared to the state governors at the time. Comparing the president’s powers favorably to those of a republican American state executive would resonate particularly well with the persuadable delegates by avoiding charges that comparing the prerogatives of the president to those of the British monarch was irrelevant to the cause, as no American king was to be crowned.

But there is one more reason. The governor of New York, George Clinton, was the presiding officer at the convention and a staunch Antifederalist. He was also a member of the upstate Albany faction politically opposed to Hamilton. Clinton is the likely author of potent attacks on the Constitution in  “Letters of Cato.” Many historians believe that it was the publication of some of those letters that induced the Constitution’s supporters to organize the effort that became The Federalist. The executive was one of Cato’s particular concerns. In an essay published four months before Federalist 69, Cato labeled the president the “generalissimo of the nation,” assailed the scope of the president’s powers, compared those powers alarmingly with those of the king of Great Britain (especially the war power), and warned, “You must, however, my countrymen, beware that the advocates of this new system do not deceive you by a fallacious resemblance between it and your own state government [New York]….If you examine, you…will be convinced that this government is no more like a true picture of your own than an Angel of Darkness resembles an Angel of Light.” Hamilton had no choice but to respond.

The result is a brief comparative overview, the particulars of which do not matter much today, as the king’s prerogatives, already circumscribed then, are virtually non-existent now. The essay does provide an introduction to various powers of the president, most of which are in Article II of the Constitution. Hamilton will delve into greater detail of various of them over the course of Federalist 73 to 77.

The Framers saw Congress as the most dangerous branch, and the one most likely to encroach on the domain of the others. While there were dangers in an independent and powerful executive, the lessons from the Revolutionary War and life under the Articles showed the need for just such an officer. The turbulence of state governments with weak and dependent executives only proved the point. Most agreed that a strong, independent executive was needed. But, how strong? What is significant for us is the dog that does not bark, the constitutional clauses that are not mentioned by Publius. Not long after the Constitution was approved, Hamilton used the occasion of Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation in 1793 to advance a broad theory of implied executive powers. His position, vigorously challenged by Madison during the Pacificus-Helvidius debates, was that the president has all powers that are not denied to him under the Constitution either expressly or by unambiguous grant to another branch. That approach has been used by subsequent presidents to fuel the expansion of executive power.

Article II is rather short, and the president’s powers few and specific. Beyond that, the boundaries are vague. It was broadly understood that George Washington would be the first president. The general recognition of his propriety and incorruptibility meant that he would have discretion to define the boundaries of the office. Indeed, Washington was expected to do so, and he was well aware of that responsibility. In addition to the oath of office, there are three clauses whose text suggests room for discretion. Those three, the executive power clause, the commander-in-chief clause, and the clause that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” have proved to be generous reservoirs of necessary implied executive powers.

Publius spends little time on the commander-in-chief clause, and essentially none on the others. He portrays the role of the president as if he would be confined to leading the troops in military engagements. While Washington, with Hamilton as his aide, actually dressed in military regalia and mounted up to lead troops during the Whiskey Rebellion, they soon delegated that project to General “Light Horse Harry” Lee. That is the least likely role of the president today. Indeed, even during the ratification debates, that was a questionable view not usually advocated, as it frightened republicans by blurring the line between civilian control and military command and was thought likely to lead to the election of “military chieftains.”

The executive power clause is the principal source for the president’s implied or inherent powers, those that the president’s detractors would disparagingly call royal or prerogative powers. The textual significance is that, while Article I says that, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress …,” Article II declares that, “The executive power shall be vested in a President …”[italics added]. That affirmative grant to the president has to mean something, and –unlike Article I regarding Congress–it has to mean more than the powers mentioned later in the text. The question ever since has been, “Just what does it mean?” Presidents have massaged that ambiguity and the flexibility of the other elastic clauses mentioned to act unilaterally, as necessity demands, usually in military affairs, foreign relations, and national security matters. Executive unilateralism came under particular scrutiny by Congress, the courts, the academy, and the media during the Bush(43) administration, though interest in that topic has slackened since the election of 2008–perhaps not coincidentally.

Not surprisingly, as advocate for the Constitution’s adoption, Hamilton does not spend time defending, or even recognizing, the theory of implied executive powers that he embraced soon thereafter. The enumeration of specific limited presidential powers and Hamilton’s soothing interpretations in Federalist 69 do not give due credit to the possible sweep of the executive office. His next essay presents a more forthright defense of the need for an energetic executive.

An expert on constitutional law, Prof. Joerg W. Knipprath has been interviewed by print and broadcast media on a number of related topics ranging from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions to presidential succession. He has written opinion pieces and articles on business and securities law as well as constitutional issues, and has focused his more recent research on the effect of judicial review on the evolution of constitutional law.  Prof. Knipprath has also spoken on business law and contemporary constitutional issues before professional and community forums.  His website is http://www.tokenconservative.com

Join the discussion! Post your comments below.

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Founders Online --> [ Back to normal view ]

The federalist no. 70, [15 march 1788], the federalist no. 70 1.

[New York, March 15, 1788]

To the People of the State of New-York.

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those irregular and high handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals, who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community, whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies, who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.

There can be no need however to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution: And a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive; it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy—how far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterise the plan, which has been reported by the convention?

The ingredients, which constitute energy in the executive, are first unity, secondly duration, thirdly an adequate provision for its support, fourthly competent powers. 2

The circumstances 3 which constitute safety in the republican sense are, Ist. a due dependence on the people, secondly 4 a due responsibility.

Those politicians and statesmen, who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles, and for the justness of their views, have declared in favor of a single executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand; while they have with equal propriety considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people and to secure their privileges and interests.

That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and 5 dispatch will generally characterise the proceedings 6 of one man, in a much more eminent degree, than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

This unity may be destroyed in two ways; either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject in whole or in part to the controul and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him. Of the first the two consuls of Rome may serve as an example; of the last we shall find examples in the constitutions of several of the states. New-York and New-Jersey, if I recollect right, are the only states, which have entrusted the executive authority wholly to single men. * Both these methods of destroying the unity of the executive have their partisans; but the votaries of an executive council are the most numerous. They are both liable, if not to equal, to similar objections; and may in most lights be examined in conjunction.

The experience of other nations will afford little instruction on this head. As far however as it teaches any thing, it teaches us not to be inamoured of plurality in the executive. We have seen that the Achæans on an experiment of two Præetors, were induced to abolish one. 7 The Roman history records many instances of mischiefs to the republic from the dissentions between the consuls, and between the military tribunes, who were at times substituted to the consuls. But it gives us no specimens of any peculiar advantages derived to the state, from the circumstance of the 8 plurality of those magistrates. That the dissentions between them were not more frequent, or more fatal, is matter of astonishment; until we advert to the singular position in which the republic was almost continually placed and to the prudent policy pointed out by the circumstances of the state, and pursued by the consuls, of making a division of the government between them. The Patricians engaged in a perpetual struggle with the Plebeians for the preservation of their antient authorities and dignities; the consuls, who were generally chosen out of the former body, were commonly united by the personal interest they had in the defence of the privileges of their order. In addition to this motive of union, after the arms of the republic had considerably expanded the bounds of its empire, it became an established custom with the consuls to divide the administration between themselves by lot; one of them remaining at Rome to govern the city and its environs; the other taking the command in the more distant provinces. This expedient must no doubt have had great influence in preventing those collisions and rivalships, which might otherwise have embroiled the peace of 9 the republic.

But quitting the dim light of historical research, and attaching ourselves purely to the dictates of reason and good sense, we shall discover much greater cause to reject than to approve the idea of plurality in the executive, under any modification whatever.

Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprize or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office in which they are cloathed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissentions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operations of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most 10 violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.

Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes in their estimation an indispensable duty of self love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon, contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may in its consequences afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice in the human character.

Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniencies from the source just mentioned must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary and therefore unwise to introduce them into the constitution of the executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious. In the legislature, promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in that department of the government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberations and circumspection; and serve to check excesses in the majority. When a resolution too is once taken, the opposition must be at an end. That resolution is a law, and resistance to it punishable. But no favourable circumstances palliate or atone for the disadvantages of dissention in the executive department. Here they are pure and unmixed. There is no point at which they cease to operate. They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure, to which they relate, from the first step to the final conclusion of it. They constantly counteract those qualities in the executive, which are the most necessary ingredients in its composition, vigour and expedition, and this without any counterballancing good. In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the executive is the bulwark of the national security, every thing would be to be apprehended from its plurality.

It must be confessed that these observations apply with principal weight to the first 11 case supposed, that is to a plurality of magistrates of equal dignity and authority; a scheme the advocates for which are not likely to form a numerous sect: But they apply, though not with equal, yet with considerable weight, to the project of a council, whose concurrence is made constitutionally necessary to the operations of the ostensible executive. An artful cabal in that council would be able to distract and to enervate the whole system of administration. If no such cabal should exist, the mere diversity of views and opinions would alone be sufficient to tincture the exercise of the executive authority with a spirit of habitual feebleness and delatoriness.

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is that it tends to conceal faults, and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds, to censure and to punishment. The first is the most important of the two; especially in an elective office. Man, 12 in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him 13 unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him 14 obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated, that where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

“I was overruled by my council. The council were so divided in their opinions, that it was impossible to obtain any better resolution on the point.” These and similar pretexts are constantly at hand, whether true or false. And who is there that will either take the trouble or incur the odium of a strict scrutiny into the secret springs of the transaction? Should there be found a citizen zealous enough to undertake the unpromising task, if there happen to be a collusion between the parties concerned, how easy is it to cloath the circumstances with so much ambiguity, as to render it uncertain what was the precise conduct of any of those parties?

In the single instance in which the governor of this state is coupled with a council, that is in the appointment to offices, we have seen the mischiefs of it in the view now under consideration. 15 Scandalous appointments to important offices have been made. Some cases indeed have been so flagrant, that ALL PARTIES have agreed in the impropriety of the thing. When enquiry has been made, the blame has been laid by the governor on the members of the council; who on their part have charged it upon his nomination: While the people remain altogether at a loss to determine by whose influence their interests have been committed to hands so unqualified, and 16 so manifestly improper. In tenderness to individuals, I forbear to descend to particulars.

It is evident from these considerations, that the plurality of the executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power; first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office, or to their actual punishment, in cases which admit of it.

In England the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim, which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing therefore can be wiser in that kingdom than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give. Without this there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive department; an idea inadmissible in a free government. But even there the king is not bound by the resolutions of his council, though they are answerable for the advice they give. He is the absolute master of his own conduct, in the exercise of his office; and may observe or disregard the council given to him at his sole discretion.

But in a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behaviour in office, the reason which in the British constitution dictates the propriety of a council not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great-Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the chief magistrate; which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behaviour. In the American republic it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish the intended and necessary responsibility of the chief magistrate himself.

The idea of a council to the executive, which has so generally obtained in the state constitutions, has been derived from that maxim of republican jealousy, which considers power as safer in the hands of a number of men than of a single man. If the maxim should be admitted to be applicable to the case, I should contend that the advantage on that side would not counterballance the numerous disadvantages on the opposite side. But I do not think the rule at all applicable to the executive power. I clearly concur in opinion in this particular with a writer whom the celebrated Junius 17 pronounces to be “deep, solid and ingenious,” that, “the executive power is more easily confined when it is one:” * 18 That it is far more safe there should be a single object for the jealousy and watchfulness of the people; and 20 in a word that all multiplication of the executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty.

A little consideration will satisfy us, that the species of security sought for in the multiplication of the executive is unattainable. Numbers must be so great as to render combination difficult; or they are rather a source of danger than of security. The united credit and influence of several individuals must be more formidable to liberty than the credit and influence of either of them separately. When power therefore is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who from the very circumstance of his being alone will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others. The Decemvirs of Rome, whose name denotes their number, † were more to be dreaded in their usurpation than any ONE of them would have been. No person would think of proposing an executive much more numerous than that body, from six to a dozen have been suggested for the number of the council. The extreme of these numbers is not too great for an easy combination; and from such a combination America would have more to fear, than from the ambition of any single individual. A council to a magistrate, who is himself responsible for what he does, are generally nothing better than a clog upon his good intentions; are often the instruments and accomplices of his bad, and are almost always a cloak to his faults.

I forbear to dwell upon the subject of expence; though it be evident that if the council should be numerous enough to answer the principal end, aimed at by the institution, the salaries of the members, who must be drawn from their homes to reside at the seat of government, would form an item in the catalogue of public expenditures, too serious to be incurred for an object of equivocal utility.

I will only add, that prior to the appearance of the constitution, I rarely met with an intelligent man from any of the states, who did not admit as the result of experience, that the UNITY of the Executive of this state was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our constitution.

The [New York] Independent Journal: or, the General Advertiser , March 15, 1788. This essay appeared in New-York Packet on March 18. In the McLean description begins The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, As Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. In Two Volumes (New York: Printed and Sold by J. and A. McLean, 1788). description ends edition this essay is numbered 70, in the newspapers it is numbered 69.

1 .  For background to this document, see “The Federalist. Introductory Note.” October 27, 1787-May 28, 1788 .

2 .  The words “first,” “secondly,” “thirdly,” and “fourthly,” omitted in McLean description begins The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, As Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. In Two Volumes (New York: Printed and Sold by J. and A. McLean, 1788). description ends and Hopkins description begins The Federalist On The New Constitution. By Publius. Written in 1788. To Which is Added, Pacificus, on The Proclamation of Neutrality. Written in 1793. Likewise, The Federal Constitution, With All the Amendments. Revised and Corrected. In Two Volumes (New York: Printed and Sold by George F. Hopkins, at Washington’s Head, 1802). description ends .

3 .  “ingredients” substituted for “circumstances” in McLean and Hopkins.

4 .  The words “Ist” and “secondly” omitted in McLean and Hopkins.

5 .  “and” omitted in the newspaper; inserted in McLean and Hopkins.

6 .  In the newspaper, “proceeding”; “proceedings” was substituted in McLean and Hopkins.

7 .  See essay 18 .

8 .  “circumstances of the” omitted in McLean and Hopkins.

9 .  “peace of” omitted in McLean and Hopkins.

10 .  “most” omitted in McLean and Hopkins.

11 .  In the newspaper, “full”; “first” was substituted in McLean and Hopkins.

12 .  “Men” substituted for “Man” in McLean and Hopkins.

13 .  “them” substituted for “him” in McLean and Hopkins.

14 .  “them” substituted for “him” in McLean and Hopkins.

15 .  See essay 69 .

16 .  “so unqualified, and” omitted in Hopkins.

17 .  Junius. Stat Nominis Umbra (London: Printed for Henry Sampson Woodfall … 1772), I, xxxi.

18 .  Junius referred to Jean Louis de Lolme, The Constitution of England, or An Account of the English Government; In which it is compared with the Republican Form of Government, and occasionally with the other Monarchies in Europe (3rd ed., London, 1781), 215.

19 .  In the newspapers, “De Lostme”; “De Lome” substituted in McLean and Hopkins.

20 .  “and” omitted in Hopkins.

Authorial notes

[The following note(s) appeared in the margins or otherwise outside the text flow in the original source, and have been moved here for purposes of the digital edition.]

*   New-York has no council except for the single purpose of appointing to offices; New-Jersey has a council, whom the governor may consult. But I think from the terms of the constitution their resolutions do not bind him.

*   De Lome. 19

Index Entries

You are looking at.

Critical Skills

By the Author of WANTED: Eight Critical Skills You Need To Succeed

Federalist Papers – Essay #69

In Essay #69, The Real Character of the Executive , Alexander Hamilton addresses anti-federalist fears that the new Constitution may elevate the President to the level of a monarch – rejected by the revolutionary war.

Hamilton makes the following comparisons:

• The president is elected for a specific term, whereas the king of England inherits his position for life;
• The president has only a qualified negative on legislative acts—i.e. his veto can be overturned— whereas the king has an absolute negative;
• Both the president and the king serve as commander in chief, but the king also has the power to raise and maintain armies—a power reserved for the legislature in America;
• The president can only make treaties with the approval of the Senate. The king can make binding treaties as he sees fit;
• The president can only appoint officers with the approval of the Senate, whereas the king can grant whatever titles he likes; and
• The powers of the president in terms of commerce and currency are severely limited, whereas the king is “in several respects the arbiter of commerce.”

In order to make the argument more relevant to the people of New York, whom Hamilton is addressing, he introduces a comparison between the president and the governor of New York as well. Surely, the people of New York would not claim that the president under the proposed constitution is an elected monarch if his powers are roughly commensurate to their own governor.

Credit for the summary and analysis of Essay #69 is given to Brittany Nelson and Christopher Higgins (second revision 09/15/2011). Weinbloom, Elizabeth ed. “The Federalist Papers Essay #69 Summary and Analysis”. GradeSaver, 30 December 2011 Web. 18 February 2019.

You can read a summary and analysis of Essay #69 by clicking HERE .

You can read the entire text of Essay #69 by clicking HER E.

One thought on “ Federalist Papers – Essay #69 ”

Pingback: Impeachment – What Is It, and What Did the Founding Fathers Think About It? – Critical Skills!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from Critical Skills

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Federalist 69

• March 14, 1788

No study questions

The Federalist. (Washington D.C.: Library of Congress). Transcription available courtesy of Project Guttenberg. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text . Last Updated on December 20, 2021

I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention. This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the representations which have been made in regard to it.

The first thing which strikes our attention is that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.

That magistrate is to be elected for four years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence. In these circumstances there is a total dissimilitude between him and a king of Great Britain, who is an hereditary monarch, possessing the crown as a patrimony descendible to his heirs forever; but there is a close analogy between him and a governor of New York, who is elected for three years, and is re-eligible without limitation or intermission. If we consider how much less time would be requisite for establishing a dangerous influence in a single State than for establishing a like influence throughout the United States, we must conclude that a duration of four years for the Chief Magistrate of the Union is a degree of permanency far less to be dreaded in that office, than a duration of three years for a corresponding office in a single State.

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Virginia and Delaware.

The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; but the bill so returned is to become a law unless, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament. The disuse of that power for a considerable time past does not affect the reality of its existence and is to be ascribed wholly to the crown’s having found the means of substituting influence to authority, or the art of gaining a majority in one or the other of the two houses, to the necessity of exerting a prerogative which could seldom be exerted without hazarding some degree of national agitation. The qualified negative of the President differs widely from this absolute negative of the British sovereign and tallies exactly with the revisionary authority of the council of revision of this State, of which the governor is a constituent part. In this respect the power of the President would exceed that of the governor of New York, because the former would possess, singly, what the latter shares with the chancellor and judges; but it would be precisely the same with that of the governor of Massachusetts, whose constitution, as to this article, seems to have been the original from which the convention have copied.

The President is to be the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment , to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States." In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these:- First . The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second . The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors than could be claimed by a President of the United States. Third . The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, except those of impeachment . The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government which have not been matured into actual treason may be screened from punishment of every kind by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity? The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary to recollect that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited" to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"; and that by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds. Fourth . The President can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment. The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament. The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may be employed to very important purposes.

The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never heard of until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every jurist of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utmost plentitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction. The Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing itself in altering the existing laws to conform them to the stipulations in a new treaty; and this may have possibly given birth to the imagination that its co-operation was necessary to the obligatory efficacy of the treaty. But this parliamentary interposition proceeds from a different cause: from the necessity of adjusting a most artificial and intricate system of revenue and commercial laws, to the changes made in them by the operation of the treaty; and of adapting new provisions and precautions to the new state of things, to keep the machine from running into disorder. In this respect, therefore, there is no comparison between the intended power of the President and the actual power of the British sovereign. The one can perform alone what the other can do only with the concurrence of a branch of the legislature. It must be admitted that in this instance the power of the federal executive would exceed that of any State executive. But this arises naturally from the sovereign power which relates to treaties. If the Confederacy were to be dissolved, it would become a question whether the executives of the several States were not solely invested with that delicate and important prerogative.

The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It is a circumstance which will be without consequence in the administration of the government; and it was far more convenient that it should be arranged in this manner than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.

The President is to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate , to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices. He can confer titles of nobility at pleasure, and has the disposal of an immense number of church preferments. There is evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king; nor is it equal to that of the governor of New York, if we are to interpret the meaning of the constitution of the State by the practice which has obtained under it. The power of appointment is with us lodged in a council, composed of the governor and four members of the Senate, chosen by the Assembly. The governor claims , and has frequently exercised , the right of nomination, and is entitled to a casting vote in the appointment. If he really has the right of nominating, his authority is in this respect equal to that of the President, and exceeds it in the article of the casting vote. In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made; in the government of New York, if the council should be divided, the governor can turn the scale and confirm his own nomination. If we compare the publicity which must necessarily attend the mode of appointment by the President and an entire branch of the national legislature, with the privacy in the mode of appointment by the governor of New York, closeted in a secret apartment with at most four, and frequently with only two persons; and if we at the same time consider how much more easy it must be to influence the small number of which a council of appointment consists than the considerable number of which the national Senate would consist, we cannot hesitate to pronounce that the power of the chief magistrate of this State, in the disposition of offices, must, in practice, be greatly superior to that of the Chief Magistrate of the Union.

Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less power than the governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an absolute negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole possessor of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.

Federalist 68

A landholder xii, see our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Coming soon! World War I & the 1920s!

The Federalist Papers

By alexander hamilton , james madison , john jay, the federalist papers study guide.

> The Federalist Papers is a treatise on free government in peace and security. It is the outstanding American contribution to the literature on constitutional democracy and federalism, and a classic of Western political thought.

The Federalist Papers were written in support of the ratification of the Constitution. While modern-day readers might see it as inevitable, the Constitution was a revolutionary step. In Philadelphia, the delegates rebelled against the existing Articles of Confederation and looked to the states, not the existing government, for ratification and approval of the new government. Because of the revolutionary nature of the new Constitution, arguments were necessary to rationalize it as a response to new emergencies. After the convention, Tench Coxe became the coordinator in Philadelphia for those who supported the Constitution, while George Mason became the coordinator for New York for those who opposed it. Hundreds and hundreds of letters were written regarding the Constitution; "Cato" and "The Federal Farmer" attacked while "Caeser" replied. Both George Washington and Ben Franklin, probably the two most influential men in the country at the time, supported the Constitution.

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were the states critical to the success or failure of the Constitution. Of these four states, New York by far was the state where the success of the Constitution was in the most doubt. The state's delegation did not approve the draft in Philadelphia because two of its three delegates left during the protest and abandoned Alexander Hamilton without a vote. Governor Clinton, the leading figure in New York politics, opposed the new government because New York had become an independent nation under the Articles of Confederation, making itself rich through tariffs on trade with its neighboring states.

Quickly, Alexander Hamilton decided that a massive propaganda campaign was necessary in New York, more so than in any other state. This new plan entailed a sustained barrage of arguments appearing in newspapers four times per week. Because of the massive amounts of work, he decided that he needed two co-authors to help him write under the pseudonym of "Publius." He originally had asked others to assist him in the project, but, luckily for him and future generations, James Madison , a Virginia citizen, was available because the Continental Congress was sitting in New York during that period. John Jay was also asked because of his vast foreign diplomatic service. Unfortunately, John Jay got sick shortly after the project commenced and was able to only complete six different papers. That left Hamilton and Madison to finish the rest, a task they were able to complete only because they relied heavily on notes they had used in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia earlier.

Eventually, the books were published serially in different newspapers in New York (four out of five of the major newspapers of the time) and were republished in book form near the end of the run. Unfortunately, the ratification vote in New York failed and New Yorkers only ratified the Constitution later, becoming the 11th state to do so. James Madison, however, took the published books to assist in the ratification debate in Virginia, and the papers survived to serve a far greater purpose than mere propaganda. The Federalist Papers are the single greatest interpretive source of the Constitution of the United States, widely considered one of the best explanations of what the Founding Fathers' purpose was in the passage of the document that governs the United States of America.

Philosophically, The Federalist Papers should also be considered in the context in which they were written. The revolutionary era was characterized by a quest for security from foreign nations, for peace in America, and for individual freedom. These values, it was hoped, could be achieved by united action. Whereas earlier plans for union were largely motivated by a desire for security and peace, those of the period under consideration were the first appearance of the "freedom motif." That motif came to the fore during the colonists' struggle with England and was recognized by the Articles of Confederation. In the arguments in Philadelphia and the subsequent Federalist Papers, this same motif held force. Arguments of unity and security, which could seem absurd to readers only familiar with the power of the modern United States, were sincere concerns and problems at that time.

The Federalist Papers Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for The Federalist Papers is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

how are conflictstoo often decided in unstable government? Whose rights are denied when this happens?

In a typical non-democratic government with political instability, the conflicts are often decided by the person highest in power, who abuse powers or who want to seize power. Rival parties fight each other to the detriment of the country.

How Madison viewed human nature?

Madison saw depravity in human nature, but he saw virtue as well. His view of human nature may have owed more to John Locke than to John Calvin. In any case, as Saul K. Padover asserted more than a half-century ago, Madison often appeared to steer...

How arguable and provable is the author of cato 4 claim

What specific claim are you referring to?

Study Guide for The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers study guide contains a biography of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About The Federalist Papers
• The Federalist Papers Summary
• The Federalist Papers Video
• Character List

Essays for The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.

• A Close Reading of James Madison's The Federalist No. 51 and its Relevancy Within the Sphere of Modern Political Thought
• Lock, Hobbes, and the Federalist Papers
• Comparison of Federalist Paper 78 and Brutus XI
• The Paradox of the Republic: A Close Reading of Federalist 10
• Manipulation of Individual Citizen Motivations in the Federalist Papers

Lesson Plan for The Federalist Papers

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to The Federalist Papers
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• The Federalist Papers Bibliography

E-Text of The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers e-text contains the full text of The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.

• FEDERALIST. Nos. 1-5
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 6-10
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 11-15
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 16-20
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 21-25

Wikipedia Entries for The Federalist Papers

• Introduction

• Avalon Statement of Purpose
• Accessibility at Yale
• Yale Law Library
• University Library
• Yale Law School
• Search Morris
• Search Orbis

Test Resources

TOEFL® Resources by Michael Goodine

Master the toefl writing section in 2024.

The writing section is the final part of the TOEFL ® test.  You’ll have about 30 minutes to answer two writing questions. They are known as the TOEFL Integrated essay , and the TOEFL Writing for an Academic Discussion Task.   You’ll be graded based on your content, organization, grammar and language use. Below are links to my best stuff, or read on for descriptions of each task.

• A Guide to the Integrated Essay
• A Guide to the Writing for an Academic Discussion Task
• Many Practice Questions and Sample Responses
• Complete TOEFL Essay Templates
• A practice academic discussion question (Video)
• The Most Common Grammar Mistakes in TOEFL Essays
• Blog Post: How Long Should a TOEFL Essay Be?
• Video Lesson: The new TOEFL Writing Question (Writing for an Academic Discussion)
• Video Lesson: The TOEFL Integrated Essay
• Service: TOEFL Essay Evaluation

The TOEFL ® Integrated Essay

The first writing question is the Integrated Essay Task.  For this task, you’ll first read a short article on an academic topic.  Next, you will listen to a short lecture on the same topic. Finally, you’ll have 20 minutes to write an essay that includes details from both sources.  You should write about 280 to 300 words in total.

The Reading

The article will be about 300 words long. It can be about any academic topic that might appear in a first-year university course, but topics related to history and zoology seem to be most common. You’ll be given three minutes to read it and then it will disappear (don’t worry, you’ll be able to see it again when you write the essay). Remember that the article will always have a main argument and three supporting points.  

The Lecture

Next, you will listen to a lecture on the same topic.  It will be about two or three minutes long.  You can only listen once, so try to take detailed notes.  Remember that the lecture will always challenge the article.  This means, for instance, that if the article claims that it is advantageous to explore Mars, the lecture will explain that it is not a good idea to explore Mars.  If the article mentions three problems with using bacteria to clean up oil spills, the lecturer will mention three solutions to these problems. 

Writing Your Essay

Finally, you will be given twenty minutes to write an essay that compares the reading and the lecture.  The question will look something like this: 

“ Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose specific points made in the reading passage. ” 

You can see the article as you write, but you cannot hear the lecture again (or look at a transcript). I recommend that you write between 280 and 300 words in total.  Ignore the “suggested length” mentioned in the instructions.  You should write more than is suggested!

Master Guide

For more help with this task, check out my master guide to the integrated writing task .  It’s got a complete sample question, a sample essay, and a template you can use.

Practice Questions

I’ve created a bunch of practice questions .  They are all free!

The TOEFL ® Writing for an Academic Discussion Task

The second writing question is the Writing for an Academic Discussion Task.

Right away, you’ll see four things on your test screen – instructions for the task, a question written by a university professor about a specific subject, and two student responses to the question.  

The question could be about any subject a student might study at university (sociology, business, political science, education) but subjects in the liberal arts seem most common.  The questions don’t require any background knowledge, however, and can be answered by any test-taker.

You will have ten minutes to read the instructions, read the question, read the responses and write your own response to the question.  There is just one clock for all of this!

A word counter will be displayed as you write. You should write at least 100 words.  I recommend writing a bit more than that. 

For more help with this task, check out my master guide .  It contains a detailed description of the task and an answer template.

How are you Graded?

Your grades come from two separate systems: 

• First, a human rater checks each response based on the official ETS rubrics .  They give you a score from 0 to 5.  The rater’s score is based on your content, organization and language use . 
• Next, the ETS “e-rater” AI  checks each response.  It mostly focuses on structure, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary . 

The scores from the humans and the AI are combined. Then they are converted into a  number from 0 to 30, which is included on your score report. 

Each essay has equal weight.

Get Help – TOEFL Essay Evaluation

• Sign up today to have your practice essays evaluated by a TOEFL writing expert (that’s me).  I’ll check your answers line by line and comment on your grammar, development, argument and vocabulary. I’ll even guess your score.  More importantly, I’ll tell you what you need to do better next time.  Check it out .

Video Guide

Sign up for an essay evaluation today, to learn how to beat the toefl, sign up for our essay evaluation service.  in 48 hours, a toefl expert will check your essays line-by-line and tell you how you can do better next time..

Sign up now!

Quarterly Essay 69: Moment of Truth

• History and Australia’s Future
• By: Mark McKenna
• Narrated by: Mike Bishop
• Length: 3 hrs and 9 mins
• 4.5 out of 5 stars 4.5 (2 ratings)

Failed to add items

Add to cart failed., add to wish list failed., remove from wishlist failed., adding to library failed, follow podcast failed, unfollow podcast failed.

$14.95/month after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

Buy for $10.73

No default payment method selected.

We are sorry. we are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method, great first listens.

Publisher's summary

Australia is on the brink of momentous change, but only if its citizens and politicians can come to new terms with the past. In this inspiring essay, Mark McKenna considers the role of history in making and unmaking the nation. From Captain Cook to the frontier wars, from Australia Day to the Uluru Statement, we are seeing fresh debates and recognitions. McKenna argues that it is time to move beyond the history wars and that truth-telling about the past will be liberating and healing. This is an urgent essay about a nation’s moment of truth.

• Series: Quarterly Essays
• Unabridged Audiobook
• Categories: History

Related to this topic

In the Path of Abraham

• How Donald Trump Made Peace in the Middle East—and How to Stop Joe Biden from Unmaking It

By: Jason D. Greenblatt

• Narrated by: Jim Seybert
• Length: 9 hrs and 7 mins
• Overall 5 out of 5 stars 26
• Performance 5 out of 5 stars 24
• Story 5 out of 5 stars 24

This book charts the remarkable journey of Jason D. Greenblatt, who spent nearly two decades in various senior positions at the Trump Organization—including as an Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer—and his subsequent appointment by President Trump as an Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations. Jason was also assigned the position of White House Special Envoy to the Middle East, playing a key role in the Peace to Prosperity Plan.

• 5 out of 5 stars

Great listen

• By Amazon Customer on 12-29-23

Reappraisals

• Reflections on the Forgotten 20th Century

By: Tony Judt

• Narrated by: James Adams
• Length: 16 hrs and 53 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 160
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 91
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 89

The accelerating changes of the past generation have been accompanied by a similarly accelerated amnesia. The 20th century has become "history" at an unprecedented rate. The world of 2007 was so utterly unlike that of even 1987, much less any earlier time, that we have lost touch with our immediate past even before we have begun to make sense of it - and the results are proving calamitous.

Superb. Insightful essays, Performance to match

• By Louis on 05-02-12

By: Henry Kissinger

• Narrated by: Nicholas Hormann
• Length: 20 hrs and 10 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 1,381
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 1,145
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 1,138

In this sweeping and insightful history, Henry Kissinger turns for the first time at book length to a country he has known intimately for decades and whose modern relations with the West he helped shape. On China illuminates the inner workings of Chinese diplomacy during such pivotal events as the initial encounters between China and tight line modern European powers, the formation and breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance, the Korean War, and Richard Nixon’s historic trip to Beijing.

• 3 out of 5 stars

Another History of China

• By Elton on 09-23-11

The Crisis of Zionism

By: Peter Beinart

• Narrated by: Lloyd James
• Length: 7 hrs and 40 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 68
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 60
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 60

A dramatic shift is taking place in Israel and America. In Israel, the deepening occupation of the West Bank is putting Israeli democracy at risk. In the United States, the refusal of major Jewish organizations to defend democracy in the Jewish state is alienating many young liberal Jews from Zionism itself. In the next generation, the liberal Zionist dream - the dream of a state that safeguards the Jewish people and cherishes democratic ideals - may die.

Urgent call to save the Jewish state from itself!

• By Mushon on 07-02-12

Bully of Asia

By: Steven W. Mosher

• Narrated by: Al Kessel
• Length: 11 hrs and 6 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 150
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 140
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 139

The signs are everywhere. China unilaterally claims the entire South China Sea as sovereign territory, then builds artificial islands to bolster its claim. It suddenly activates an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea, and threatens to down any aircraft that does not report its position. It builds roads into Indian territory, then redraws the maps to show that it is actually Chinese territory. The People's Republic under President Xi Jinping is quickly becoming The Bully of Asia .

Eye opening, up to date

• By Silomi on 01-01-19

Everything Under the Heavens

• How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power

By: Howard W. French

• Length: 11 hrs and 56 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 111
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 90
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 92

For many years after its reform and opening in 1978, China maintained an attitude of false modesty about its ambitions. That role, reports Howard French, has been set aside. China has asserted its place among the global heavyweights, revealing its plans for pan-Asian dominance by building its navy, increasing territorial claims to areas like the South China Sea, and diplomatically bullying smaller players.

• 4 out of 5 stars

Unique Concept

• By John on 02-24-20

American Dialogue

• The Founders and Us

By: Joseph J. Ellis

• Narrated by: Arthur Morey
• Length: 8 hrs and 41 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 247
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 214
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 212

The story of history is a ceaseless conversation between past and present, and in American Dialogue , Joseph J. Ellis focuses the conversation on the often-asked question "What would the Founding Fathers think?" He examines four of our most seminal historical figures through the prism of particular topics, using the perspective of the present to shed light on their views and, in turn, to make clear how their now centuries-old ideas illuminate the disturbing impasse of today's political conflicts.

A fine work, even with the editorializing

• By Casey Kerrick on 11-24-18

Temptations of Power

• Islamists & Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East

By: Shadi Hamid

• Narrated by: Peter Ganim
• Length: 10 hrs and 51 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 37
• Performance 4 out of 5 stars 33
• Story 4 out of 5 stars 33

In 1989, Francis Fukuyama famously announced the "end of history." The Berlin Wall had fallen; liberal democracy had won out. But what of illiberal democracy - the idea that popular majorities, working through the democratic process, might reject gender equality, religious freedoms, and other norms that Western democracies take for granted? Nowhere have such considerations become more relevant than in the Middle East, where the uprisings of 2011 swept the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups to power.

A new perspective

• By Dave114 on 08-06-18

• Stories from the Long Road to Freedom

By: Condoleezza Rice

• Narrated by: Grace Angela Henry
• Length: 12 hrs and 55 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 282
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 256
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 257

From the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union to the ongoing struggle for human rights in the Middle East, Condoleezza Rice has served on the front lines of history. As a child, she was an eyewitness to a third awakening of freedom, when her hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, became the epicenter of the civil rights movement for black Americans. In this book, Rice explains what these epochal events teach us about democracy.

A Case for Democracy

• By Jean on 05-18-17

The Mighty and the Almighty

• Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs

By: Madeleine Albright

• Narrated by: Madeleine Albright
• Length: 10 hrs and 22 mins
• Overall 4 out of 5 stars 94
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 32
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 32

Does America have a special mission, derived from God, to bring liberty and democracy to the world? How much influence does the Christian right have over U.S. foreign policy? And how should America deal with violent Islamist extremists? Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State and best-selling author of Madam Secretary , offers a thoughtful and often surprising look at the role of religion in shaping America's approach to the world.

The point??

• By Thomas on 11-04-06

Founding Brothers

• The Revolutionary Generation (Pulitzer Prize Winner)
• Narrated by: Bob Walter
• Length: 12 hrs and 31 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 886
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 786
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 784

An illuminating study of the intertwined lives of the founders of the American republic - John Adams, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.

• By Gotta Tellya on 08-10-16

The Crusader

• Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism

By: Paul Kengor

• Narrated by: John Pruden
• Length: 13 hrs and 52 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 109
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 100
• Story 5 out of 5 stars 99

God and Ronald Reagan made presidential historian Paul Kengor's name as one of the premier chroniclers of the life and career of the 40th president. With The Crusader , Kengor returns with the one book about Reagan that has not been written: the story of his lifelong crusade against communism and of his dogged and ultimately triumphant effort to overthrow the Soviet Union.

Whether you like Reagan or not....

• By Daryl on 10-20-13

Of Paradise and Power

• America and Europe in the New World Order

By: Robert Kagan

• Narrated by: Robertson Dean
• Length: 2 hrs and 45 mins
• Overall 4 out of 5 stars 93
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 38
• Story 4 out of 5 stars 38

When historians want to find out about the ideas that motivated American foreign policy in the early years of the twenty-first century, they would do well to read this book. Robert Kagan has formally set out a case for unilateralism on the part of the United States, as opposed to the multilateralism now characteristic of Europe. Kagan believes that the United States can disregard a weak Europe, and have a free hand in pursuing its global interests.

Quick and pithy listen

• By Erik Fosshage on 01-14-04

The Democracy Project

• A History, a Crisis, a Movement

By: David Graeber

• Narrated by: Grover Gardner
• Length: 9 hrs and 38 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 298
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 255
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 256

Democracy has been the American religion since before the Revolution - from New England town halls to the multicultural democracy of Atlantic pirate ships. But can our current political system, one that seems responsive only to the wealthiest among us and leaves most Americans feeling disengaged, voiceless, and disenfranchised, really be called democratic? And if the tools of our democracy are not working to solve the rising crises we face, how can we - average citizens - make change happen? David Graeber, one of the most influential scholars and activists of his generation, takes listeners on a journey through the idea of democracy.

Must-read: such insight, an awakening!

• By Kevin on 10-15-14

Africa Is Not a Country

• Notes on a Bright Continent

By: Dipo Faloyin

• Narrated by: Dipo Faloyin
• Length: 9 hrs and 24 mins
• Overall 5 out of 5 stars 145
• Performance 5 out of 5 stars 126
• Story 5 out of 5 stars 126

So often, Africa has been depicted simplistically as a uniform land of famines and safaris, poverty and strife, stripped of all nuance. In this bold and insightful book, Dipo Faloyin offers a much-needed corrective, weaving a vibrant tapestry of stories that bring to life Africa's rich diversity, communities, and histories. Starting with an immersive description of the lively and complex urban life of Lagos, Faloyin unearths surprising truths about many African countries' colonial heritage and tells the story of the continent's struggles with democracy through seven dictatorships.

• By Jane on 01-26-23

Ike's Gamble

• America's Rise to Dominance in the Middle East

By: Michael Doran

• Narrated by: Casey Jones
• Length: 9 hrs and 1 min
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 74
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 68
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 69

In 1956 President Nasser of Egypt moved to take possession of the Suez Canal, thereby bringing the Middle East to the brink of war. The British and the French, who operated the canal, joined with Israel in a plan to retake it by force. Despite the special relationship between England and America, Dwight Eisenhower intervened to stop the invasion.

Tightly Argued

• By Jean on 01-10-17

Practicing History

• Selected Essays

By: Barbara W. Tuchman

• Narrated by: Wanda McCaddon
• Length: 12 hrs and 51 mins
• Overall 4.5 out of 5 stars 121
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 106
• Story 4.5 out of 5 stars 104

Master historian Barbara W. Tuchman looks at history in a unique way and draws lessons from what she sees. This accessible introduction to the subject of history offers striking insights into America's past and present, trenchant observations on the international scene, and thoughtful pieces on the historian's role. Here is a splendid body of work, the story of a lifetime spent "practicing history".

• 2 out of 5 stars

Barbara Tuchman fan faced with reality

• By J. Whittle on 09-27-18

The Kurds: The History of the Middle Eastern Ethnic Group and Their Quest for Kurdistan

By: Charles River Editors

• Narrated by: Colin Fluxman
• Length: 1 hr and 20 mins
• Performance 4.5 out of 5 stars 33

The Kurds: The History of the Middle Eastern Ethnic Group and Their Quest for Kurdistan examines the group and the contentious issues surrounding them. By delving deeper into their ethnic, religious, and political history, it is possible to understand the larger issues of statelessness and the striving for independence. At the same time, the relationships between the Kurds and the ruling regimes of the day have changed and altered the political landscape in the Middle East.

Brief Historical Account but lacks depth.

• By Shadow Kurdi on 02-21-22

What listeners say about Quarterly Essay 69: Moment of Truth

• 4.5 out of 5 stars 4.5 out of 5.0
• 4 out of 5 stars 4.0 out of 5.0

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Audible.com reviews, amazon reviews, please sign in to report this content.

You'll still be able to report anonymously.

IELTS General Training

A hub for IELTS GT test takers to help them reach their goal.

Essay 69 – When a country develops technology, traditional skills and ways of life die out

Gt writing task 2 / essay sample # 69.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Present a written argument or case to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic.

When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to try and keep them alive.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: [Agreement]

When a nation advances technologically, it inevitably takes a toll on the conventional skill set and lifestyle. In my opinion, traditional competencies and values of life are not important to be maintained as technology changes society in a transient manner and solves problems for the people who live in it.

To commence with, there is no rationale for preserving traditional skills that have no practical need for a better lifestyle. Powerful technology makes these skills useless as the proliferation of cutting-edge technologies supersedes the old ones each day as time goes by. In fact, technological changes determine the conditions under which we live. Let’s clarify this with an example. DVDs players are obsolete VHS players and the skills required to mend VHS players are no longer useful. When the technology has offered even more powerful storage solutions, keeping the backdated ones is just pointless.

Likewise, maintaining a rigorously conventional lifestyle can limit the progress of human civilization. That is to say that the traditional way of life promotes one to remain the same, retaining the same custom; which in turn may dissuade men from inventing new ways of life to make it easier and superior. It keeps people trying to live in the past; thereby they distance themselves from the blessings stemmed from technological development. On top of that, the traditional lifestyle confines people in their comfort zone. To put it another way, they cannot push themselves to think outside the box with traditional views.

It would be reasonable enough to draw a conclusion that traditional skills and lifestyle often make no sense at all when there are better alternatives. Therefore, we should be looking forward to embracing the new manners of life and new skill set.

Model Answer 2: [Disagreement]

Conventional skill sets and lifestyles in society are fading away with the advancement of technology. Many believe that the need to maintain a traditional set of skills and ideas is worthless. Such a view, is, however, seriously mistaken. This is because traditional skill sets and lifestyles can bring considerable benefits to the environment and the community as well.

Traditional competencies have been forged over hundreds of years of human experience and they are crucial to the environment. These skills were devised with empirical observations about its inhabitants and the ecosystem as a whole. The convention on biological diversity, for example, finds that many indigenous communities have been using biodiversity and cultivating it in a sustainable manner for hundreds of years. Thus, in times like this environmental chaos, traditional skills are of profound importance more than ever.

Similarly, the traditional lifestyle is just as noteworthy as common skills. By maintaining it, people can build a healthy community. In a traditional value system, collectivism takes the centre stage at every level of life. Individuals determine themselves as members of groups, and place the priorities of their collective priorities ahead of their personal preferences. In short, individuals aim to satisfy others’ requirements rather than their own demands. On the contrary, today’s individualistic society pays attention to the needs of the individuals over the needs of the group as a whole; which in turn very often provokes bitter conflicts and widens the gaps between the poor and rich.

In fine, traditional skills and ways of life are not only good for the environment but equally are important for the welfare of our society. We should keep alive traditional skills and lifestyles because these can resurrect a healthy environment and a harmonious society for all.

Sample Essay 3: [Disagreement]

There is no doubt that with the advancement of technology, many traditional skills and ways of life are becoming obsolete. However, I strongly disagree with the opinion that it is pointless to try and keep them alive. In my view, it is essential to preserve traditional skills and ways of life because they are an integral part of a country’s culture and heritage.

Firstly, traditional skills and ways of life provide a connection to a country’s past and identity. They give us an insight into how our ancestors lived and worked, and how they contributed to the country’s growth and development. By preserving these skills and ways of life, we can maintain a link to our history and heritage and pass it on to future generations.

Secondly, traditional skills and ways of life can be a valuable source of knowledge and inspiration for modern technology. Many of these skills have been refined over centuries and can offer unique perspectives and solutions to contemporary problems. For instance, traditional methods of agriculture or handicrafts can provide insights into sustainable and eco-friendly practices that can benefit modern industries.

Moreover, preserving traditional skills and ways of life can help to promote cultural diversity and maintain a sense of community identity. These practices often reflect the customs, values, and beliefs of a particular community, and their preservation can help to promote social cohesion and understanding.

In conclusion, it is crucial to recognize the value of traditional skills and ways of life and work towards their preservation. They provide a connection to our past, offer valuable insights into modern-day problems, and promote cultural diversity and social cohesion. It is not purposeless to try and keep them alive, and we should do our best to ensure that they are not lost in the march of technological progress.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Coherence and Cohesion: ?

Lexical resource: , grammatical range: , task achievement: .

• Listening Tests
• Academic Tests
• General Tests
• IELTS Writing Checker
• IELTS Writing Samples
• Speaking Club
• Free IELTS Speaking Test Online
• Latest Topics
• Vocabularying
• 2024 © IELTS 69

Preparation for IELTS Writing 

 the largest catalog of ielts academic s essays academic letters.

• IELTS Expert
• Rising Topics
• Com - ments
• 1 comment there is an origin for the Voynich manuscript The author of the reading believes that there is an origin for the Voynich manuscript and provides three theories of support. However, the lecturer rejects the claim made in the reading, casting doubt on all the three theories presented in the passage. First, the author claims that there is some complex and secret scientific or magical information in this book that has been written b ... Guest
• 1 comment Recently published figures show that the wildlife population around the world has decreased by around fifty per cent over the last fifty years. What can we do to help protect the wildlife round the world? Humans have become a prime culprit for the destruction of the wildlife population around the world. Humans believe that they are the most powerful species on this planet and have therefore chosen to use all of nature’s resources for their own good, even if this results in the destruction of the environment around them. Clearly, this is not a positive result of human existence and many ... Marghzari Amin
• 1 comment Television injects violence in children, and programs with violent scenes should be banned. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. The modern television shows are equipped with violent content and they immensely influence the young minds. It is strongly believed by various sections of society that such scenes should be censored from being broadcast. I too, support this notion. Relevant reasons to prove this fact are discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs with illustrations. The first point worth mentioning is t ... Guest
• 2 comments As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom. There is no doubt that education and the learning process has changed since the introduction of computers: The search for information has become easier and amusing, and connectivity has expedited the data availability. Though experts systems have made computers more intelligent, they have not yet become a substitute of the human interaction in the learning process. In my opinion what ... priyadarshini sowmya
• 2 comments Today’s schools should teach their students how to survive financially in the world today. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience. In schools, students learn to analyse literature, calculate using trigonometry and understand how photosynthesis works, but often students are inexperienced and helpless after graduation when encountering the real world. It is therefore argued that schools should teach their students how to survive financially in the world. This topic is difficult though. Many educators believe tha ... Thomas Jinat
• 2 comments Many people put their personal information online (address, telephone number, and so on) for purposes such as signing up for social networks or online banking. Is this a positive or negative development? The advent of a digital society has led to greater vulnerability in terms of the person information stored online. In my opinion, these associated dangers are significant but do not outweigh the benefits of a more convenient user experience. Concerned policymakers often argue that sensitive information registered online fosters widespread fraud. The majority of individuals store some ... Guest
• 7 comments Some people say that the only reason for learning foreign languages is in order to travel to or work in a foreign country.Others say that tese are not the only reasons why someone should learn foreign language. In recent years, the world has seen uprecedented rocket in the number of individuals learning a foreign language. A part of the modern society claim that the cause to acquire a foreign language is visit or work in overseas countries. Controversely, majority opine that potential benefits of studying a various language are not only limited to the job and travel outward. From my standpoi ... Guest
• 3 comments Along with the increase in population, this has declined in the living standard in city areas due to the environmental pollution. The topic of the population explosion has been discussed in recent years. Many countries of the world are currently experiencing problems caused by rapidly growing populations in urban areas. This essay will look at some primary reasons for this phenomenon and the adverse impacts that it could have on individuals and the environment. It is possibly said that this issue may be caused ... Guest
• 2 comments some people say history is one of the most important school subject. Other people think that ,in todays world subjects like science and technology are more important than history. Discuss both views and give your opinion. There is split opinion regarding importance of subjects in school curriculum. Some people believe that the subject like history plays an important role in primary education however, others counter argue by saying that recent technological advancement subjects like Science and Technology have great impact on children apart from history. As such there are both merits and demerits to it ... Vishal Kagade
• 1 comment Some people believe that teaching music in schools is a vital part of growing up and the human experience, whilst others believe that teaching music in schools is a waste of time and resources. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. In modern day society, education has become a vital aspect of every child’s life. Educational facilities tend to offer a wide range of subjects aimed at educating children and teaching them various skills. Fundamental subject areas are said to be mathematics, science, languages and physical education. Depending on the type of educational facility, a certain subject might be emphasised ... Paul Tanmoy
• 1 comment Information technology enables many people to do their work outside their workplace. Do the benefits of this mobility outweigh the disadvantages? Nowadays, in this digital era, the impact of information technology has transformed the way we do our activities. Therefore, a lot of people are able to work remotely instead of going to the offices. For me, personally, I think the advantages of this advancement outweigh the drawbacks. The improvement of technology provides us with flexibility and convenience when working. First, we ... Guest
• 6 comments Social media is becoming increasingly popular amongst all age groups. However, sharing personal information on social media websites does have risks. Do you think that the advantages of social media outweigh the disadvantages? It is a known fact that use of social networking platforms is increasing at a tremendous pace across the globe. Some people believe that they are very beneficial to the society at large while others argue that they have some associated risks. This essay will argue that the advantages of this outweigh the drawbacks. The essay will first demonstrate that the social media acts as a bridg ... camoeez