They both introduced 'free trade' between states/colonies/countries which previously did not have it. Of course, both involved much, much more than just 'free trade' so the trade aspect was fairly minor compared to everything else. The backers of the Articles of Confederation were concerned with state sovereignty over trade and other matters, so we tried that before we adopted the Constitution with its 'free trade'. We don't think twice now about 'free trade' between Pennsylvania and Virginia but before the Constitution, it was a contentious issue.
One catch with the 'partnership agreements' like the EU and US is the enforcement mechanism for interstate/international disputes that goes with it. Some on the right are still fighting our own federal government when it enforces national legislation that some - usually conservative - states don't like. That was an even stronger argument in the early days of our country which is why we tried the Articles of Confederation first. The 'state sovereignty' was strong back in the day and it is an argument that will apparently never go away. Likewise in Europe, it is the right that is still fighting the role of the EU, preferring the good ol' days of supreme state sovereignty.
One question with the TPP is whether you can do today what the US did 225 years ago and what Europe did 50 years ago. Are corporations too strong? Are liberals too weak? Is international cooperation to deal with global problems - climate change, trade, repression, labor rights, human rights, refugees, etc. - a discredited mechanism in the eyes of the left and the right anymore? Maybe the FDR era of international organizations and agreements has waned and we have moved into more of a "You deal with your problems and we'll deal with our problems" frame of mind.
= new reply since forum marked as read
