You have also said that repeatedly. Rightly or wrongly, many 19th century Americans did not want to be relegated to the position of Spain or Jamaica, Australia or Argentina: that of a provider of raw goods for British industry.
Exploiting the American political system to build a petty industrial empire for onesself by raping the entirity of the rest of the nation of its core livlihood through means of government policy is no better than the wretched sin of slavery itself.
Well, that says it all. Agree with it or not, I don't think Hamilton's or Lincoln's tariff policy can be compared to slavery. For one thing, political policies can always be changed when those who are adversely effected vote against them. That wasn't the case for the condition of the slaves, who had not vote. For another thing, free men and women can move to more economically advantageous regions or trades. Slaves could not.
Moreover, it's not clear that tariffs were as destructive as you claim. Even without tariffs, the development of technology and the opening of new lands made agriculture increasingly less profitable and industrial development advisible. There is always some discomfort and conflict when agriculture becomes unprofitable or ceases to provide people's needs and wants.
And as I have noted, there is no better way to NOT be relegated to such a position than to let the market work freely and produce where it says to produce rather than Britain. You keep repeating yourself in asserting that fear, yet at the same time that fear is no compelling reason for protectionism.
Well, that says it all. Agree with it or not, I don't think Hamilton's or Lincoln's tariff policy can be compared to slavery.
What is it then? First you insert morality, then you want it taken out, and now you want it back under consideration.
If you want to discuss morality, tell me - regardless of any other issue is it moral or immoral to make one's fortune off the backs of others by way of designing a self-beneficiary government policy to boost your business? If it's moral, tell me why. If it's immoral, that makes the desire to implement those policies, protectionism, immoral as well.
Moreover, it's not clear that tariffs were as destructive as you claim. Even without tariffs, the development of technology and the opening of new lands made agriculture increasingly less profitable and industrial development advisible.
I think the problem here is becoming increasingly clear. You're citing excuses rather than arguments for protectionism. Sorry but that simply doesn't fly. The presence of some gains from protectionism is inevitably outweighed by far greater losses in practically every situation regardless of how much you anecdotally inflate and promote the numbers of those few who gain. That's simply the way tariffs work. The effects of a protectionist tariff as an economic policy are readily identifiable beyond any of the silly little hypothetical situations, single case possibilities, and appeals to historical "understanding" you offer as excuses on its behalf. The entirity of those gains is almost always surpassed several times over by the losses. This is a matter of mathematical certainty, not pick and chose anecdotal excuse making.
As for agriculture in 1860, southern production was at an all time record high.
Which is exactly what Henry Carey, the leading American Economist at the time said a decade before the Civil War. The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural, Manufacturing & Commercial
He argued that the only way to avoid being an economic surf of Great Britain was the development of industry at home. He made a rather sophisticated argument that promoting domestic industry through protective tariffs not only helped manufacturing interests but would also promote increased wealth among farmers and merchants. If you look at the growth of the middle class through the 2nd half of the 19th Century when protective tariffs he advocated were in place, it seems his ideas did work. We became completely economically independent and a full "equal" with the British.