[GOPcapitalist]

It would be surprising if there wasn't some understanding of the "Laffer curve" in 19th century America. One of Grover Cleveland's slogans was "a tariff for revenue only."

You are correct. There was a speech sometime in the 1840's where John Calhoun discussed the concept at length and describing essentially the curve itself with a revenue maximization point and protectionism or revenue raising to either side of it. Before him Alexander Hamilton discussed the concept way back in the Federalist papers, which are mentioned in that journal article.

The desire to use tariffs to promote manufactures at home was understandable.

That is what the protectionists argued and that is at least one major desire of them by pushing the issue, but it is also an economically fallacious argument beyond very basic and limited levels. When trade is not impeded, comparative advantages emerge, the nation as a whole is economically better off from the free trade, and industry develops anyway. That is what the yankee protectionists never understood. Protectionism worked great for them in their own little protected industrial enclaves, but for everybody else, and pardon my wording for lack of a better phrase, it just plain sucked.

[x]

Many, like Lincoln himself, who looked at the neo-colonial relationship between Southern cotton planters and British manufacturers regarded that system in the same way as you regard protectionism. Once land was settled there was little industry and hence, little opportunity for the industrious poor to improve their condition. Protectionism was intended to stimulate industry that would give opportunity to the ambitious workingman. For those plugged into the colonial economy, protection was an unnecessary burden, but for more impoverished Southerners it's possible and likely that the benefits of protection could have outweighed the costs.

Established economic powers and underdeveloped countries viewed competitive advantage in different ways. In the British scheme, Spain and Portugal would always be providers of wine to the English, and the Caribbean Islands would always provide sugar for the home country. 19th century Americans wanted to avoid such a subservient fate. And it wasn't only Northerners. Virginians, like Madison and Monroe promoted protective tariffs in the early 19th century. Virginia manufacturers and ironfounders, Kentucky hemp growers, and Louisiana sugar kings all favored higher tariffs.

We've moved beyond protectionism, but a major reason for that is that we are now in the position that Britain had in the early 19th century. We benefit from and rely on foreign trade for our prosperity. A protective tariff would be a great folly for us. In the 19th century, Americans still had to work things out on their own and figure out ways to develop home industries or reconcile themselves to being appendages to other economies.

Given Confederate support for protective sugar tariffs, and Virginia manufacturers' enthusiasm for using revenue tariffs against their Northern competitors, it's pretty clear that things weren't so black and white between North and South.