Pick a horse and ride it. I don't think tarrifs were used to keep people from selling war materials to Japan. And it would have had to be an EXIT tariff if so.
Tariffs should be used as taxes, not national security or other reasons. They wouldn't work well enough anyway. Different laws cover national security, rightfully so.
Was the quote you made clearly the trading with the enemy act was an interference with the freedonm of Americans to do business with anyone they they wanted to. I merely gave you a clear example to show how the absolute you posted has some real problems. You made the assertion I showed it false.
Tariffs clearly have been shown by quantitative analysis to have a net benefit to the USA in at least one case. A general historical perspective of protective tariffs over their more than two hundred years of being in effect in the USA shows them to be a positive factor in the growth of the USA.
Now those nations employing high tariffs China and India apear to also be enjoying very high rates of growth. I have repeated asked for a quantitative analysis showing at least one case where a tariff has provided a net harm. No one has been able to find one or post such evidence or any link to such evidence. If you can find one is those position papers the Cato institute sends you then please inform them they need to have it available of their web site because the lack of such analysis tends to make the thesis that Tariffs are harmful to the USA questionable to say the least.
The existence of a qantitative study using multiple regression analysis to show a net benefit does exist and although I do not have time to post links to others there are other such case studies.
Now logically one must conclude that since in multiple instances it has been shown that tariffs have a net benefit for the USA and those opposed to tariffs have sthe same tools available to them ie regression analysis. And those opposed to tariffs have as much access to data as everyone who favors tariffs I submit if it could have been done easily it would have been done easily. It would be out there flung in our faces. If the Steel Consumers council wanted to provide real proof they would have nbalanced costs against benefits and done the full work instead of just the cost side on the tariffs.
There3for teh lack of such easy availablity to such a study proves that sucvh a study showing a net harm from any one tariff is impossible.
Logic states a premise for which evidence refuting the premise is available is false. logic also says if a result should be there and it is not there the premise is false. Therefor teh premis that tariffs are harmful to the USA in all cases is definitely false ad is the premise that tariffis are often harmful and usually harmful.
Now my irrelevant logiclaly belief is that tariffs may be harmful in some cases but I can not even prove such harm