Hamiltonian Federalists vs. Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans
Pro-British, big government, industrialization and aristocracy vs. Pro-French l, small government and agrarianism. Very odd mix by today's standards.
You're forgetting a somewhat more important division between the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians, which came to be really important later on when the Whigs becomes the heirs of the Federalists and the Jacksonian Democrats the heirs to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. The issue is trade.
The Hamiltonians were generally protectionists (though I'm unsure if mercantilist would be the appropriate label), whereas the Jeffersonians generally embraced free trade. Considering how important trade was to many states, how certain states agitated for tariffs on certain goods and so on, you may wanna take that into account.
I have to admit I'm not too certain of this, but if Hamilton manages to re-assume a firm leadership of the Federalist Party, there may be some voices in Congress arguing (and perhaps they are successful) in amending the US Constitution so that Hamilton may run for president (Hamilton was born in the West Indies), and then, who knows, he may even get the job.
With the risk of stirring up undesired debate on the issue of the Founding Fathers and their religion, Hamilton appears to have differed from Jefferson and Madison in the view of the Constitution and its relation to the Christian religion. As omniscient Wikipedia informs us:
"In 1802, he [Hamilton] began to organize "The Christian Constitutional Society", the first principle of which, even before supporting the Constitution, was "the support of the Christian religion"."
Additionally, Hamilton wrote after the constitutional convention:
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
It appears to be the case that Hamilton saw the Constitution as being directly inspired by the Christian religion. Contrast this to Democratic-Republican James Madison (4th President), who expressed the following opinion in a letter to Edward Everett:
"The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory."
The position of the Constitution being derived from Christianity also appears to contradict Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Perhaps Hamilton would seek to firmly establish the position of the United States being a Christian Nation as official policy?
