As even a first year economic student knows any study of policy result must make certain assumptions and the studies rise and fall with those assumptions. That is the case here.
Those studies can be balanced with studies with different assumptions showing the opposite results. Unlike scientific experiments we are not able to run history over after changing policies to see which one would work best or if they did what was intended. Those studies did not consider the result of capital flows to pay for the increased imports and thus the impact on the market as a whole and how much that would reduce demand for those products because of the reduction in the money supply. Even the econometric studies do not ask such questions but simple ones for which a regression equation can be hypothesized and tested.
It almost becomes a matter of faith. But if you want to base yours on the proposition that there is sufficient data and accurate specification of the independent variables to draw a definitive conclusion that is contrary to theory and the general conclusion of history feel free. But once again we are not speaking of strictly economic issues but also politcal ones. It was a political goal to develop those industries and it may have not been identical with the methods a completely free market economy would have used or even as effective. But this cannot be proven.
All three works I've cited are easily available, fakeit. If you wish to challenge them you are perfectly free to do so. Otherwise, no real reason exists why we should not accept them.
Those studies can be balanced with studies with different assumptions showing the opposite results.
Name me one that does that.
Unlike scientific experiments we are not able to run history over after changing policies to see which one would work best or if they did what was intended.
No, but we are indeed able to examine dates of technological adoption and discern irrefutable facts such as the fact that the United States iron industry lagged technologically behind Britain by 50 years during the period of protection. We can also observe the fact that U.S. iron producers reintroduced an antiquated charcoal smelting technique in response to the protectionist tariff of 1842 that otherwise would have succumbed to new technology at a faster rate. And we can observe the fact that technological innovative objects, or "learning by doing" as it is often called, remained stagnant in response to the textile tariffs of the 1820's. These are not difficult things to grasp, fakeit, and the overwhelming abundance of scholarly works from people who are far more educated in the matter than you ever will be states that the claimed goals of antebellum protectionism simply were not met in practice.
Those studies did not consider the result of capital flows to pay for the increased imports and thus the impact on the market as a whole
You do not know any of that as you have not even read the studies I referenced. You are simply spouting technical-sounding jargon that you believe, however mistakenly, will obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your earlier claims.