Lord, lord will there be no end of your grasping at straws to find something to argue about?
The unfavorable comparision was because the tariff was not as drastic and therefore not as protective as the embargo. That would not have changed had the latter been well planned and properly thought out. It is not a rational argument against tariffs because the embargo stimulated domestic production more than a tariff could. Nor were they complaining because the embargo stimulated domestic manufactures of import substitutes. They were complaining because it destroyed our shipping industry and crippled our export industries something the tariffs did NOT do.
The ONLY aspect of the tariffs properly compared to the Embargo involved the degree of protection offered by each. Only a fool would believe the former could be as effective as the latter in that regard.
You're being slothful again, fakeit. Taussig did not say that the tariffs failed because they were not drastic enough. He did note that the embargo imposed a drastic trade restriction, which we properly call autarky. But nowhere does he fault the tariffs for failing to impose more autarky. That was YOUR comparison made by YOU in YOUR posts HERE. And to that I say that you are in pretty bad shape when your argument has to unfavorably compare the tariffs to the notorious Embargo Act!
Taussig simply notes they were ineffective at accomplishing much of anything they claimed they would do. You, of course, do not like that fact thus you ignore and dismiss evidence of it while attempting to distort what others have said about it into the exact opposite.