> The interests of slaveholding states may have influenced the choice of the Electoral College as the mode of electing the president. James Wilson proposed a direct election by the people, but gained no support and it was decided the president was to be elected by congress. When the entire draft of the constitution was considered, Gouverneur Morris brought the debate back up and decided he too wanted the people to choose the president. James Madison agreed that election of the people at large was the best way to go about electing the president, but he knew that the less populous slave states would not be influential under such a system, and he backed the Electoral College. Another factor here was the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave added power to the slaveholding states under the Electoral College which they would not have had under any likely form of popular vote.[1]

This is clear recognition that the electoral college was seen as amenable to the interests of the less populous slave-holding states. The 3/5 compromise increased the number of representatives for slaveholding states relative, and number of representatives is a factor in the number of electors to the college.

Moreover, simply because Hamilton claims something in a Federalist paper does not mean it was the only consideration in the support of an electoral college. Wikipedia (incidentally, no, I do not agree it is a better source at all) even supports this point by noting that Madison supported direct election, as did James Wilson and Governeur Morris. Madison noticed that the slaveholding states would not consent to such a method of election.

Your claim could not be more wrong and you are twisting the evidence to unequivocally deny an argument there is very real evidence for.