Nobody said that it didn't. You did, however, phrase your understanding of it in marxian terminology.
The state during H's day neither owned nor controlled companies nor businesses.
Then why all the attempts at price management?
His Report did not call for massive state intervention.
I've sure you've told yourself that more than enough times than is necessary to convince you it's true. Back here in the real world though everybody knows that it isn't.
Because your claims were so consistent with hers.
What are you blathering on about again, dyad boy?
Since the purpose of the tariff was to raise revenue such a tariff would have never been proposed because of its drastic reduction of that revenue.
Falsely assumed premise, thus a false conclusion. There was no "since" about it. The 1789 Tariff's purpose was to raise revenue. Hamilton desired to give favors to "infant industries" in the form of bounties and protective tariffs. That meant raising the tariff rate beyond what it was already doing, viz. collecting revenues.
Yet using such terminology has you throwing out the "Marx card" to frighten the faint at heart. Try something else.
All of Hamilton's actions were designed to strenthen the Union. Their success was overwhelming and no man did more to establish the strong capitalist economy future generations benefit by.
Few accept your definitions so who cares what you believe massive state intervention means anyway.
Dad? Yeah, I'm a dad.
A mildly protective tariff for some industries was Hamilton's policy all right. Even a Revenue tariff has a protective aspect that cannot be avoided.