Exhaustive studies have been conducted on the three primary beneficiaries of protection in the early 19th century: bar iron, cotton textiles, and woolens. In all three cases it has been concluded that protectionism flat out failed to achieve what was claimed as its goal, viz. the stimulation of American industrial development in those sectors. Textiles and woolens both received no discernable stimulation and iron actually saw its production made comparably less efficient as protection delayed the implementation of the previous half century of technological advances in the smelting process.
If you are referring to Taussig's conclusions you are not doing so with accuracy since cotton and woolen manufactures were greatly expanded by the restriction on imports imposed by Jefferson then protected by tariffs. Woolens were given only "very moderate encouragement" because of the lack of a minimum valuation.
Taussig's conclusion wrt to the tariff is that it was probably unnecessary for this nation's transition to manufacturing. But one of the two reasons for this result was that the period of restriction (Jefferson's Embargo and the War of 1812) "effectually prepared the way for such a transition." Exclusion of imports is the most severe way of protecting infant industries.