Hamilton was not doing the “best that he knew”. he stood in direct opposition to Jefferson’s push for a small and unassuming state. Hamilton’s constant call for a “government of more energy” indicates that he was not trying to improve the lot of the American people, but that he was trying to improve his own lot. He must have realized that “its good to be king”, and that is why he set about advocating for central banks and deficit spending and grants of monopolies every which way.
It is true that this is how other countries ran things, but we just fought a revolution to escape that nonsense. Plus, there were plenty of people besides Jefferson who opposed the activist state. Hamilton was not just flying blind, as some seem to think.

Hamilton’s emphasis was on creating a strong Union precisely because he knew that, if he did not do so, the alternative would have been a strengthening of centrifugal tendencies at the state level. No sooner would states split then war between states would result over land, over trade, navigation, etc. As “safety from external danger” is the first priority of the Government, each state government would be forced to arm itself and standing armies would be introduced–like in Continental Europe. Morever, Europe, fearing America’s rise, would play the various parts aginast one another.
Ironically, the very liberty that the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson in particular) wanted would never have existed under the conditions they proposed. Hamilton used the debt to bind the nation, reasoning only in Union, which despite his efforts almost collapsed, could individuall liberty be saved.
It is one of the great ironies of the above commentator–who fashions himself a lover of liberty– that he celebrates the slaveholder Jefferson while renouncing the creator of the manumission society, Hamilton.