I never heard anyone claiming it "caused" the crash of '29, but I have heard many well respected economists say that it deepened the recession and caused a cascade effect that prevented recovery --- i.e. Depression.
Looking at that chart, I was amazed at how high the rates were. I had not realized they were that big and that broad based. From a pure economic standpoint, it does not appear to be either a revenue increasing plan or a pragmatic protection tariff for key industries, but a massive tax increase, in the midst of an economic downturn --- Not a smart move.
Maybe after I finish fighting the Civil War, I'll dig into the Depression. ;~))
These claims are also greatly exaggerated. Prior to the Depression, imports formed only 6 percent of the GNP. With average tariffs ranging from 40 to 60 percent (sources vary), this represents an effective tax of merely 2.4 to 3.6 percent. Yet the Great Depression resulted in a 31 percent drop in GNP and 25 percent unemployment. The idea that such a small tax could cause so much economic devastation is too far-fetched to be believed.
Even an effective tax of 2.4 to 3.6 percent is overstating the effects of the tariff. The tariff rates were already high to begin with. One source reveals that Smoot-Hawley raised rates from 26 to 50 percent; another source from 44 to 60 percent. In that case, we are talking about an effective tax increase of 1.4 percent at most.
Furthermore, Smoot-Hawley did not entirely shut down trade. For the U.S., it fell from 6 to 2 percent of the GNP between 1930 and 1932. This does not mean, of course, that Americans necessarily "lost" that 4 percent. It merely means that they had 4 percent more to spend on their own domestic products.
Looking at that chart, I was amazed at how high the rates were. I had not realized they were that big and that broad based.
Yes, I agree that 60% is excessively high. However, comparison to the 20% effective rate on total imports would seem to indicate that they were not all that broad-based. Interestingly, during the 1820s period you noted, the rate on dutiable imports and the effective rate on ALL imports are much more in line with each other.
Despite staunchly opposing those who exagerate the negative effects of tariffs, I do not myself advocate the use of selective or protective tariffs. Nor do I favor excessively high tariffs such as those that have been imposed in our past.
Rather, I advocate a truly broad-based revenue tariff that would be applied to ALL imports at a rated between 10% and 20%. (This would be comparable to the "red line" in the chart.)
Targeted, or selective/protective tariffs do not work well and skew the competitive playing field. They may benefit some industries while hurting others, while also creating loopholes to circumvent the tariff. A broad-based revenue tariff avoids these complexities while providing minimal advantage to domestic production in our domestic market (IMHO, necessary at this time due to other burdensome regulations the federal government imposes on domestic industry). The relatively low rate would not shut down trade, and revenues could be used to offset cuts in other forms of domestic taxation.