More venom, yet still no content or substantiation. The simple fact of history is that the major industries that protectionism was supposed to help - textiles, woolens, and iron - did not experience the anticipated technological growth spurt and in fact lagged behind with inferior and antiquated technologies. That fact has been thoroughly documented by several very distinguished economists including Frank Taussig, nobel laureate Robert Fogel, and Paul David to name a few. Hamiltonian protectionism was a failure. Live with it.
That is your claim not theirs. Trying to claim that his policies were a failure is not a viable theory though at times the general theory that tariffs don't work as planned surfaces from time to time. Neither side can be proved empirically and theoretic claims are just that.
This is unarguable though- Hamiltonism was designed to transform the new nation into a capitalist economy and spur the growth of domestic industry; the new nation's industrial sectors began to grow rapidly after it was passed and continued to do so until the 1830s when Jackson spiked it by destroying one of H's major institutions a major factor in that growth. Those sectors he had stimulated resumed their growth after the Jackson Depression was worked through. Is this a Liberty Valence situation were something else caused this growth? Not that I can see. And the fact remains that by the end of the 1800s America was the greatest capitalist power in the world with an industrial capacity second to none.