Should draw the eye of the youngbloods. The newbies and their sponsorship are important here. Like trains, the people currently inventing those and the processed behind them are searching for sponsors.
We're right in the middle of the English abolition movement with abolition becoming increasingly popular. It might get some busybodies mad but I'm pretty sure by now nobody's willing to punish a colony for outlawing and not engaging slavery. Especially not a productive colony like ours.
Are a factories even a thing right now? It's only 1783 and not even 1800's.
I wasn't thinking of the ban as being that expansive. Part of the reason for it is to prevent state sponsored textile mills, for example, from importing slave grown cotton from across the river. So it's partly a protectionist measure disguised as a humanitarian one.
The first industrial mill in the USA is credited to Samuel Slater "The Traitor", an employee at an English textile mill. Exporting factory designs was illegal, so he memorized the design before moving to New York in 1789. So this is about the right time for this. We also have the advantage of being British subjects, so it is hard to argue that we shouldn't be able to build British style factories, unless Britain intends to revert to the kind of oppressive mercantilism that just caused a colonial rebellion.
Engineers are "workers with valuable technical knowledge." Anyway, it doesn't matter if they are called engineers or not, someone has to understand the machines well enough to operate and maintain them, and I bet we can pay them more than they are making now.
Not really? I mean, we are Britain. This is less like France doing it and more porkbarrelling. A bit of a dick move but nothing serious.
Should leave it that expansive. It fits our history of accidentallying far bigger reforms than first understood. This is a good thing. Especially now right at the cusp of slavery's end. Besides, we're doing good enough financially to tank the loss.
The alternative to strike as a legitimate bargaining tool is strike as an illigitimate bargaining tool. I decidedly, from a statesman and capitalist perspective, prefer the first to the second.
This is basically what it does. I was just making the point that this isn't the same thing as embargoing South Carolina.
Britain banned textile workers from emigrating and the Americans got people anyway. I can't imagine Parliament would try to ban people from moving to a self-governing British colony, unless they were willing to provoke another rebellion.
I don't like this. It serves no need and provides loopholes that we don't need. The blanket law is blanket and broad but frankly some things don't need specification. At all. The most change that needed was the word directly and even then I'd say the blanket law is better.
