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.
Yes, Hamilton and Adams admired the stratification of English society, but I was speaking of Hamilton’s economic model, which was similar to France’s. The old system of English mercantilism was the direct inspiration for Hamilton, but England was slowly turning toward free markets by the time of ratification and was solidly in the limited government, free market camp during the 19th Century. I referenced France because, instead of following the advice of brilliant economists such as Turgot and Bastiat, France continued with statism, which was similar to the old English mercantilism. Over time, France has consistently played out more along the lines of what Hamilton proposed.
As for the Constitution, Hamilton’s “interpretation” is just the stock in trade of dishonest lawyering. If you think he was providing an honest reading of the Constitution, then we would have to believe “interpretations” such as Marbury, Kelo, Roe,Lawrence, Obergefel, and Wickard were honest readings of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers, and more important, the plain text of the Constitution and the state ratification debates show otherwise.
I’ve said nothing about Jefferson, although nothing in his administration even remotely compares to the Alien and Sedition Acts. To say he has been criticized for his record on civil liberties is meaningless. If he did something contrary to the express civil liberties provisions of the Constitution, I’d be interested in hearing about it. My intuition, though, that the “criticism” is according to the faux civil liberties views of the left, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. If you would like an example of Jefferson arguably exceeding his powers, I would suggest that his actions during with respect to the Louisiana Purchase could be examined.
You can’t understand actual economic history with reading it. Folsum makes a clear empirical point that is relevant to your claim. You might find it interesting, and the book is quite readable.
Sorry to have gone on at such length...