sures contributed to the conflict whichled to the American revolution. Similarly, protectionism also led to the Civil War. Duringthe Civil War era, the industrial North was goading the agricultural South through thehighly disputed Tariff of Abominations of 1828 and 1832. This high tariff protected thenorthern manufactures while the South demanded a low tariff in order to trade its cottonfor cheap foreign goods. Eventually, these conflicts led to issues of secession, which thusled to the Civil War. Through these examples, Peterson argued that protectionistmovements have never succeeded in the past, which means that they will not succeed intoday’s economy. Peterson seems to have forgotten several factors in his analysis. Even though it iscorrect to use mistakes of the past economies as examples, he has forgotten the fact thatthe international economic climate is continually changing and is blatantly different fromhow it was during the times of the American Revolution and the Civil War. Peterson isusing positive analysis by looking at “what will happen” to the US economy and theinternational economy, rather than looking at the issue using normative analysis and seeing“what should happen.” What should happen should be seen in respect to the conditions ofthe modern American economy and the international market. What may have happenedwith past protectionist measures does not necessarily mean that similar conflicts willrepeat in the present. By tightening the laxity of the American free trade policy, warsshould not occur. Quite the opposite, wars will be prevented by eliminating the tenaciouscompetition between the United States and the other nations. One major strategy used to manage trade differences between countries is regulareconomic summits among leading industrial nations to create economic policies. Theseeconomic summits were born in 1975 from the ideas of French President Valery GiscarddR...
