Bullsh*t. Taussig's conclusion on Cotton textiles is this:
"It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties." (p. 38)
In summary, they industrialized BEFORE the protectionist tariffs and were NOT helped AFTER the protectionist tariffs.
Taussig's conclusion on Woolens is this:
"The manufacture of woollens received little direct assistance before it reached that stage at which it could maintain itself without help, if it were for the advantage of the country that it should be maintained."
Once again they industrialized BEFORE the protectionist tariffs and were not in need of help after them.
Taussig's summary for Iron:
In the iron manufacture twenty years of heavy protection did not materially alter the proportion of home and foreign supply, and brought about no change in methods of production.In all three cases protection is found to have achieved virtually nothing positive and certainly nothing anywhere near the level it was claimed it would achieve. No amount of quote mining or out of context excerpts will ever change that fact, which is stated in the plainest of English in his conclusion as quoted above.
It is simply false to claim that the beginnings of an industry means that the country had "industrialized" clearly the very beginnings of something is not the entire thing. Taussig clearly states that there was a great expansion in cotton mills in the quote I referenced.
And "...would hardly have been much retarded" does NOT mean "did not work."
The plainest English Taussig uses only says the tariff may not have helped much but he is extremely circumspect in that "conclusion."