Good to see that you aren’t trying to pretend that the First Congress didn’t pass a protective tariff. As did the majority of Congresses for a hundred years afterwards.
But according to your definition that makes Washington and Hamilton “marxists”. Adam Smith must have been too, as he admitted that the use of retaliatory tariffs could be useful.
But they may well be “marxists”, since Karl Marx in fact wrote in favor of free trade in 1848. Not exactly for the usual reasons, but because he believed it would hasten the “revolution”:
“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade.”
“Karl Marx in fact wrote in favor of free trade in 1848. Not exactly for the usual reasons, but because he believed it would hasten the “revolution””
True. He wasn’t wanting mankind to benefit. He wanted nation states destroyed, and a worldwide Marxist revolution. And he thought free trade was a fine tool to achieve that.
Applying a late 19th century term to 18th century men isn't very usefull considering the the industrial revolution was a generation and a half removed from Washington, Hamilton and Smith.
Yes, tariffs funded the early government. In a mercantilist system that's really the only bullet you have.