Hamilton clears the High Road with a whiff of patronizing declarations.
10 Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequence of the offices they hold under the state establishments, and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
Then...
19 For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.
What the ???? He just fought in a revolution to throw off an oppressive government. He had threatened to resign his commission had he not been given the opportunity to draw blood. Just as a lack of Judicial effectiveness will spawn vigilantism, the lack of an effective government will result in an armed revolution. Perhaps he was all too aware of the power of an armed opponent. Can't we all just play nice?
25 An over scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.
Although the sentence is rather convoluted I think the gist is that it's faulty logic to put individual rights above those of the 'public good', however that might be defined. Erring on the side of our God given Rights is admonished. With no direct reference to 'public good' maintaining or strengthening those Rights I must assume he intended the public good to trump.
Don't forget that there were mobs running around New York City destroying printing presses as a part of this debate. I think this is what Hamilton is referring to.
It struck me that way, too, and it must have occurred to others who demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Yet it’s ironic that the state government were the ones who insisted on the bill of rights. In some way, the ideal of self interest conflicted the perversion of self interest. The states had experienced oppression by the King, and then freedom, which was failing them. It’s that taste of individual liberty that we seem to lack today.