1. That event preceded the Federalist that we now discuss. You may not agree with my view, but I believe the Constitution sets a before/after line in history. Once the system was set, it must be worked with, as the oath suggests.
2. I have trouble with the tone of the writing you cite. Angry soldiers are a force to be taken seriously. Then the writer uses emotionally laden terms, Hamilton's pessimistic imagination, his daring to advise Washington, asking him to badger Congress, etc., the writing is like something you would see in the NY Times.
What would Washington have done if Hamilton had not been so strong in his communications? If he did decide to act, would the timing have been too late? We just don't know.
I missed your reply when it was first made. My bad. I’ll come back to the second question tonight. Until then I’ll quote, “Behind every historian is a story teller.” I forgive flowery writing as long as it doesn’t distract.
As and aside, I think Publis deserves kudos for remaining so objective towards the subject of these posts.