The Jay Treaty was in no way an “entangling foreign alliance”. It gave England nothing it had not already taken and prevented the building of forts at inconvenient places in North America as well as leading to the removal of the forts occupied contrary to the Peace Treaty.
Any weaknesses in the treaty would have been removed had the Democrats allowed Hamilton to go to England to negotiate it. But they were so afraid of his political ascendency that they would not allow his appointment. Jay, as capable as he was, was no Hamilton and the failures in the treaty flowed from his incapacities.
The protective aspects of the tariff as proposed by H were primarily directed at manufacturing necessary for a strong national defense. It was not a high tariff and his arguments regarding “infant industries” held sway for over a century and not just, as you noted, within the US. But even so it was not a protective tariff but designed to maximize revenues within the above constraints.
I have a “man-crush” on ALL patriots who put the needs of the Union above petty personal and regional concerns.
The protective aspects of the tariff as proposed by H were primarily directed at manufacturing necessary for a strong national defense.
I don't care if they were directed at putting a man on the moon. The simple fact is protective tariffs do not work as economic policy because they encourage the protected industry to become lazy and divert its resources into maintaining and expanding its tariff advantage, rather than innovating and bettering their product.
It was not a high tariff
Initially, no. But it quickly became an outrageously high tariff in the 60%+ range as the very same industries Hamilton protected lobbied for more and Congress gave it to them. Hamilton let that cat out of the bag. Hamilton was to the high tariff regimes of the 19th century what FDR is to the Great Society and Obamacare - the direct and complicit intellectual forbearer. And just like welfare queens today, the tariff handouts he initiated were never large enough - they always demanded more until it became so large and so outrageous (Smoot Hawley) that it basically caused the Recession of 1929 to turn into the Great Depression, just like the heirs of FDR's New Deal are driving us into a debt-induced recession today.
and his arguments regarding “infant industries” held sway for over a century and not just, as you noted, within the US.
So what's your point? There were idiots who believed him in the past, and there are idiots who believe him today. It doesn't make him any less wrong, and in fact some of the idiots who believed in (Otto von Bismarck) were quite dangerous individuals for it.