yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.
To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.
An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.
i am the federalist, not You.
The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.
It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.
Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.