Statism didn’t have free reign until the culmination of the disasterous Wilson/FDR years. I’m not in doubt, and I’m not gratuitously knocking France. Hamilton’s ideas were retrograde, and very much in tune with the retrograde example of France’s long-entrenched dirigisme model (from Louis XIV onward). Hamilton did hate the Constitution that was ratified and worked sedulously to subvert it. His acolytes in the courts helped things along dramatically, with Marbury being an example of a poison pill that keeps on giving. Of course, Hamilton wasn’t alone. Many Federalists ignored the Constitution when they could, as, for example, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration. For a more careful look at Hamilton/Clay type policies during the 19th Century, I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsum.
Hamilton's model was always England. Jefferson's love was for France, Revolution and all. England may not have been the best model for America, but Hamilton was not as "hands on" as the French model was. So far as I know, he wasn't going to micromanage industry.
Hamilton did hate the Constitution that was ratified and worked sedulously to subvert it. His acolytes in the courts helped things along dramatically, with Marbury being an example of a poison pill that keeps on giving.
Hamilton was satisfied with the Constitution we got. His interpretation of the Constitution (and Marshall's) wasn't the same as Jefferson's, but he was there at the convention. He voted for the Constitution. He signed it. He was one of many Founders who compromised his original views for the sake of the country.
Of course, Hamilton wasn’t alone. Many Federalists ignored the Constitution when they could, as, for example, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration.
True. But that wasn't the last time government curtailed civil liberties because of a national crisis. Jefferson, who protested against the Alien and Sedition Acts, has also been criticized for his own record on civil liberties.
For a more careful look at Hamilton/Clay type policies during the 19th Century, I recommend The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsum.
I haven't read the book, but from the reviews it looks like he's separating out the capitalists of the late 19th century into two groups, good and bad, and maybe ignoring that both benefited from the same protectionist policies.