No. He is arguing that the embargo act and the wartime disruptions of 1812 destabilized the U.S. economy in a way that "might" have stimulated domestic production of some items. Those acts were not imposed for the purpose of protection however - they were wartime policies. One might just as well try to pass off World War II as an "economic policy" since it had the economic effects of stimulating an economy as it exited a depression even though the war itself was not undertaken for that purpose.
AND his weak conclusions
Weak? No, fakit. Try unequivocal: "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century." You are simply being slothful when you attempt to suggest anything else.
which you amplify and adopt as your own were only applicable to three tariffs' effects.
...and those three tariffs also happen to be on three of the most protection-prone items in the economy at the time! Other studies I've seen identify five or six major protection candidates in the antebellum economy: the three that Taussig examined plus glass, certain wooden products, and perhaps one more item depending on the study. Iron, cotton textiles, and woolens were also the largest of protected industries and thus provide ample representation of the effects of protection.
Those disruptions led to a rapid expansion in import competing industry because they were the equivalent of protective tariffs.