is overly simplistic, correctly described as "loaded language" and wrong on my levels.
It overly simplifies "free trade" with the same zeal that people categorize the tea party.
Those that understand know that free trade /= no tariffs. It means that supply and demand should allocate resources to locations of comparative advantage.
So, if it is determined that lax regulation (sweat shops) create advantage for country x, it is perfectly acceptable within the definition of free trade for a country to exact a tariff on that good that levels the playing field. What is not acceptable is to slap a 5000% tariff on that good simply because you want to ensure that country y's base has no competition.
When China began dumping tires in the US, it was perfectly acceptable to put a halt to this. There were and still are serious questions about the validity of the pricing that was used vs cost. (ie, was the pricing predatory or not)
And to use late 1800s industrial revolution growth as a validation of protectionism is a bit silly. Who were we protecting ourselves from? Who cares that there was a 200% duty on train engines? Who were we going to import them from? Not like you could drop one of those on a schooner.