Mercantilism is another matter and refers to the practice in that era of monarchies and nation states building their economies through protectives tariffs that forced the development of domestic industries. Adam Smith's insight was the free trade was generally better because offered general economic prosperity though comparative advantage. Predatory trade policies are an exception of sorts and raise of host of other issues.
In fairness to Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury he put America's finances on a sound footing. His fundamental insight was that if properly organized and regularly paid, America's national debt would become an economic asset by paying interest on currency reserves held by banks and the wealthy. This helped create the pool of capital that funded the country's development, then and now.
This may seem counter intuitive, but the national debt and the debt market and banking system it fosters are part of the reason that you can get a home mortgage and a car loan and that you have an employer who will hire you. They enable banks to act as intermediaries so that wealthy people can convert cash into a source of income through capital investment. In effect, lending to build and provide you (and the rest of us) with a home, car, a job, and an abundance of material goods and services is not charity or state socialism but income generating capital investment.
The alternative to Hamilton's system that you seem to suggest that the Confederacy offered was that instead of providing investment capital to fund internal improvements and productive jobs and better living for free people, the bulk of investment capital would go to funding the purchase and holding of slaves laboring under conditions of money-saving privation. That is mostly accurate, but keep in mind that since slavery also required capital, its financiers made a lot of money. In the end, the bankers and the wealthy always make money somehow.
Of course they did. With 72% of the money funding Washington DC coming off the work of slaves, they wanted freebies from Washington DC to be paid for by others. These regions of the country *STILL* believe in freebies from the government.
The point of such public works was that they enabled an expansion of commerce for merchants and for farmers to move crops to market and gain cash income instead of remaining money-scarce subsistence farmers.
And guess who controlled their transport monopolies? If you guessed that same wealthy elite monied class in the Northeast that controls Washington DC, go to the head of the class.
Look up "The Graingers."
They enable banks to act as intermediaries so that wealthy people can convert cash into a source of income through capital investment.
Austrian school of economics calls this "rent seeking." They wanna be Lords. They want aristocracy where they don't have to work but the peasants do.
That is mostly accurate, but keep in mind that since slavery also required capital, its financiers made a lot of money. In the end, the bankers and the wealthy always make money somehow.
I've long said that if they had been successful in keeping their independence, it is likely I would be bitching about the wealthy elite in the South rather than in New York City and Boston.