[Old Teufel Hunden]

"There was no tariff to complain about during Jefferson's presidency, or at least not in the protective sense, because the first overtly protectionist tariff was not adopted until 1816."

Here's something else you were wrong about. There was a protectionist tariff. In fact it was one of the first acts of Congress. Called the Tariff Act of 1789.

http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/tariff-act

"This act, together with the Collection Act of 1789, operated as a device both to protect trade and to raise revenues for the federal government."

I'm sure you'll say something like you were right because it was not overtly protectionist. Guess what? All tariff's are designed to raise government revenue and protect an industry. You're getting too predictable.

[conimbricenses]

Yawn. The Tariff of 1789 was miniscule, seldom exceeding single digit percentages on any given item it taxed. It was so low that when they passed mild rate hikes in the 1790's, the tariff schedule was STILL highly conducive to free trade.

See: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/ham.pdf

QUOTE: "Although Hamilton’s proposals for bounties (subsidies) failed to receive support, virtually every tariff recommendation was adopted by Congress in early 1792. These tariffs were not highly protectionist because Hamilton feared discouraging imports, which were the critical tax base on which he planned to fund the public debt."

"Protectionist" tariffs generally taxed well into the double digits as their goal was to discourage importation all together. Think of a sales tax that was 60% or 100% or in some cases even 300%. Most tariffs before 1816, by contrast, were less than 10% and to call them "protectionist" in the same sense as the ones Jefferson protested in the 1820's, you demonstrate conclusively that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.