In light of his treatment of avarice, ambition, monopoly, and cupidity, it appears he is saying that the desire for, admiration and appreciation of, the aggregate national blessings derived from honest industry – without laws/politicians picking winners and losers – is consistent with moral principles (i.e., it is fine to celebrate the USA being a prosperous nation, if the wealth results from honest efforts and justice prevails). Conversely, it is immoral and oppressive when government intervenes to selectively distribute property, rather than diligently constrain avarice via administration of justice. That is the gist of what I interpreted, but I am here to learn and remain open to other thoughts.

the most logical retraction of our governments to the original and true principles of the Constitution creating them, which has appeared since the adoption of the instrument.

There was VERY little those two disagreed upon. Maybe that one sentence out of the many others in this particular writing – was one of them. Not sure, though.