It's pretty fascinating to read Hamilton's take on the same questions about faction conflict against Madison's Federalist 10…and only in part because Hamilton is just so crazy-fascinating.

The two men were in contact with each other while writing the Federalist Papers and tried to write with the same unified voice, but pieces of their individual character poke through their writings.

For starters, Hamilton is a lot more concerned with the larger history of republics, particularly Greece and Rome's republics, and how chaotic and turbulent they could be in regards to faction warfare.

He stresses that that's not just how Republics are; we've gotten a lot better at political science over the centuries and we can make a Republic that will work. After that, he spends the last half of the paper discussing quotes from Enlightenment-era political thinker Montesquieu about his thoughts about Republics.

He mainly does so in order to push the United States away from a Confederacy, a loose alignment of political entities, and towards a Union where the states are brought together into a political whole with equal amounts of sovereign power.

Compared to Madison, who explains more precisely how a US Republic would work to keep faction power down, Hamilton's grappling with a lot of political history, and where exactly the United States should fit inside it.

It's more high-level political theory as opposed to Madison's more practical guidebook. (So, um, get your reading glasses and a cup of tea before settling down with this one.)