I find it interesting that you would think that Iredell "channeled" Hamilton, because Iredell was not a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention and I can find no evidence that up until that time he had ever even met Hamilton.
But, if you mistake the concept for Hamilton, I can assure you it is pure Madison:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in the enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution." (Madison in the 1st Congress during debates on the amendments, in reference to what would become the Ninth Amendment)
Thank you for quoting from Wood's Pulitzer Prize winning volume. It is on my "wish list." His Creation of the American Republic is a classic text, first published in the late 1960's. It won the Bancroft and Dunning prizes.
He was parrotting Hamilton -- just like you -- and it probably says something about Wood, that he felt tender enough about quoting Hamilton on this point, that he went to the more obscure Iredell instead to lay the losing marker.
Here is Hamilton, in Federalist 84, temporizing with and condescending to popular opinion, knowingly patronizing and lying to the People about the huge implications of the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses which he had co-authored:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John....It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. [Emphasis supplied.]
Hamilton knew what people like him in Government would do, absent a Bill of Rights, and armed with all the numerous powers and scope-enlarging weasel-phrases like "necessary and proper" that Hamilton and his allies had larded the Constitution with. He knew, and so did the Antifederalists:
The wording of the Constitution as a whole was cited, and particular attention was paid to the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses. "No terms," wrote "Brutus" [Robert Yates, aka "Sydney", a New York Antifederalist sent by the Clinton party "to keep an eye on Hamilton"], "can be more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose." [Antifederalists almost universally failed to anticipate the role of the Supreme Court.] What powers, therefore, did the Constitution acutally withhold from Congress? The new government would be omnipotent. Similarly the words "general welfare" might be interpreted to extend to every possible subject.....[examples of quoted opinions, by Silas Lee and "Timoleon", cited]...[Emphasis added.]In short, it was argued that the general welfare and the necessary and proper clauses were indefinite and indefinable. The state governments had no check on the powers that they would confer by interpretation upon Congress. If the Constitution truly established a government of limited powers [which the lying Hamiltonians said it did], then some restrictions were obviously essential. An amendment must be added which definitely reserved to the states all ungranted powers. As a result of this argument all of the states which proposed amendments included one similar to that which became the tenth amendment to the Constitution.
-- The Antifederalists, pp. 154-155.
Author Main also adds in a footnote that, according to a history of the town of Durham, Connecticut, written in 1866, elderly citizens who survived from the Federal era told him that Durham had voted against ratification of the Constitution "from the apprehension and fear felt by the people of the town, that the Federal Government to be created by it [the Constitution], would take advantage of the powers delegated to it, to assume other powers not delegated." No fools they. Their neighbors should have listened.
But Hamilton knew all this -- and he lied about it, wheedling and cajoling and speaking with forked tongue.
And you admire this guy.