It's a matter of simple fact, fakeit. Either the policies succeeded or they did not. The explicitly claimed purpose of the policies - to foster the "infant" development of specified recipient industries beyond what would occur naturally in the market - is also necessarily the benchmark against which their success may be determined. Thus, to show them a failure requires only to show that the given industry's growth was either on par with non-intervention or inferior, as in the policy actually retarded growth. Taussig did just that with qualitative studies of iron, woolens, and textiles - the three main protected industries. David did an econometric study of textiles and found no gain from protection. Fogel did an econometric study of iron and found that protection slowed the replacement of inferior smelting techniques. That means protection did not boost those industries like it promised. That means the policy failed and your bizarre Hamilton fetish will never alter that fact of history.
As even a first year economic student knows any study of policy result must make certain assumptions and the studies rise and fall with those assumptions. That is the case here.
Those studies can be balanced with studies with different assumptions showing the opposite results. Unlike scientific experiments we are not able to run history over after changing policies to see which one would work best or if they did what was intended. Those studies did not consider the result of capital flows to pay for the increased imports and thus the impact on the market as a whole and how much that would reduce demand for those products because of the reduction in the money supply. Even the econometric studies do not ask such questions but simple ones for which a regression equation can be hypothesized and tested.
It almost becomes a matter of faith. But if you want to base yours on the proposition that there is sufficient data and accurate specification of the independent variables to draw a definitive conclusion that is contrary to theory and the general conclusion of history feel free. But once again we are not speaking of strictly economic issues but also politcal ones. It was a political goal to develop those industries and it may have not been identical with the methods a completely free market economy would have used or even as effective. But this cannot be proven.