Now you are simply lying. That Taussig recognized the _theoretical_ validity of the infant industry argument (and most economists, even Friedman, do - they simply note that it seldom if ever is seen to work in practive) in no way alters his other observation that protection simply did not work in the early 19th century. Exactly what about the words "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century" do you not understand?
And these quotes are not data mining since I have read his book and do not share your opinion of his conclusion which is simply that it "might" not have worked.
It's quote mining, fakeit, as you are spinning out of context phrases to make it sound as if he concluded other than he did. Nor did he simply say that protection "might" not have worked - he said flat out that it did not work and made that statement unequivocally under the header titled conclusion: "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century"
There is no clearer statement wrt the tariff made by Taussig than the one disabusing the idea that the theory of protection is wrong.
The quote you are hanging your sombero on does not accurately display his conclusion since it excludes the comments which indicate that the period of extreme protection (the Embargo and War) did much of what the tariffs were designed to do get those industries established.
Nor do you quote anything by him saying that it "flat out did not work" that is just another falsehood.