Since I was born and raised in the South I was educated to believe Jefferson was almost perfect and Hamilton was the Devil’s own hand in American politics. It was only about ten years ago that I decided to look deeply into the era of the Founding.
What I found was that the truth had been turned on its head and that the sins attributed to Hamilton were actually those things necessary to bring this nation to a position of strength and allow its survival. Jefferson’s virtues were wildly overstated and often would have been a disaster if implemented at the beginning. He was as big a fraud and phony as his namesake Billy Jefferson Clinton though a much better furniture maker.
Hamilton favored NO COUNTRY for any reason other than its usefulness to the US. It was HE would warned (through Washington’s lips) about the danger of permanent attachments to any nation.
His “protectionism” was merely an accompaniment unavoidable in a revenue tariff or to build up defense industries.
There was certainly no “provoking” war with France although it did believe our foreign policy should be an adjunct to its own and it attempted to manipulate (with the Democrats help) our policies. Jay’s treaty was a nice “fork you” to the terrorists.
Since I was born and raised in the South I was educated to believe Jefferson was almost perfect and Hamilton was the Devil’s own hand in American politics.
I don't think that's necessarily a southern thing. Hamilton and Jefferson tend to rise and fall in estimation vis-a-vis one another every couple of decades. The trouble with it all is a tendency to instill perceptions of the two as a "saint" or "devil," and fetishize with one while demonizng the other accordingly. Though resist admitting it and may not even realize its extent yourself, your Hamiltonian partisanship takes on an extreme character, as does your Jefferson hatred, both of which are obscuring your ability to conduct measured factual analysis of each man.
It was HE would warned (through Washington’s lips) about the danger of permanent attachments to any nation.
And in doing so Hamilton only demonstrated his duplicitous political tendencies. It would be laughably absurd for the architect of the Jay Treaty to turn around and denounce entangling foreign alliances only a few years later, except that he did just that.
His “protectionism” was merely an accompaniment unavoidable in a revenue tariff or to build up defense industries.
Have you not even bothered to read Hamilton's writings on trade? Or are you simply so smitten by your Hamiltonian man-crush that you cannot recognize its plain text?
Hamilton was a proponent of protectionism FOR explicitly protective purposes - i.e. infant industry and manufacturing development - from around 1779 onward. Yes, his tariffs also generated revenue as most tariffs are prone to do, but their aim was explicitly protective as Hamilton stated in great detail in his Treasury report on Manufactures.