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.
I don't have contrary studies handy but will look into it I do know that most anthologies have essays and studies with both claims. I have read Fogel and enough econometric studies to know how they are set up and what is tested and I have read Taussig's book on the tariff but it is rare and I don't have a copy at hand despite trying to get one of my own. It took months to get one from the Chicago Public Library that I could check out.
I have explained the limitations of your claim that the tariff impeded technological changes because of the differences in the markets available to British and American iron makers and in the availability of capital to each. There was no period of equality between the two groups of makers so the is little certainty that the 50 yr claim is accurate. And if they were 50 yrs behind at the initiation of the policy then the statement means nothing.
Can a tariff slow development by protecting the wrong industries? Sure because it is as much a political device as an economic one. Did ours make mistakes? Likely. Was it run exactly as Hamilton wished. Not likely. He was notorious for doing tremendous empirical studies before recommending policies for more than any of his successors and he was NOT in favor of protection beyond the infant industry stage. But, as Taussig describes, after the Jeffersonian Embargo the politicians decided that the Nation should be made less dependent upon Europe and calculated it to increase our industry to achieve that end.
There was little jargon in my statement and it is derived from the reading of scores of econometic studies, if not hundreds, as well as doing them myself for different classes. Thus, I understand the methodology used. And I know that most are not capable of standing up to systematic analysis because they do not address and remove the effects of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation if you want some real jargon.