Slave Interest Groups

[1337Marth]

I know that any country with slaves, in all likelihood, doesn't care about them at all. However, the pops still have to have some kind of preference, right? What interest groups would slaves be aligned with?

 

[orko2020]

Presumably none, they have no political representation, not even informally. Not all pops are gonna belong to an IG, some will be politically uninvolved.

 

[Claudius84]

I saw on some screenshots the term 'Marginalized Groups' in the UI. I presume this is for minorities where slaves belong to for example.

But maybe some slaves support IG's with the abolitionist idea? I saw on another screenshot red icons for ideologies and some IG's had an icon with broken shackles.

Although the previous user said: it will be very hard to be politically active when you are a slave.

 

[Revshawn]

Yeah! There were a few slave rebellions in the US and other areas, but they were few and far between. That's the representation they should have in Victoria 3. No political representation, but represented in game as pops with a strong support of abolition. Naturally they'd always be at risk of unrest and rebellion that grows stronger as the world changes.

 

[dunka2]

It will likely be more like it was in the USA historically with various other sections of society (including freemen and escaped former slaves) preferring interest groups that want abolition, while the slaves themselves are just represented through unrest until they are freed. In the game I think the USA landowner interest group wants slavery while the industrialists and intellectuals want to abolish. Will be interesting to see what they do with the religious interest group as they were pretty evenly split between those that supported slavery and those that didn't. Hell, most churches even had unofficial schisms over the matter, the largest being the Methodist (pro-slavery) and the Episcopal (abolitionist). This didn't even apply on the ground as some local Episcopal and Methodist churches took the opposite view. Then there's the whole issue of the Baptists.

Now I'm wondering how they will represent all the different religious groups in the USA and religion in general within a nominally secular state...

 

[lachek]

There are Interest Groups in favor of abolition, but the slaves themselves do not have any political strength with which to support these groups. Their way of getting their voices heard is more direct, by necessity.

 

[kviiri]

United States had escaped slaves practice abolitionist activism in the Free States, apart from outright slave rebellions this is the closest I can think of.

 

[Claudius84]

There are Interest Groups in favor of abolition, but the slaves themselves do not have any political strength with which to support these groups. Their way of getting their voices heard is more direct, by necessity.

Will these interest groups also influence diplomacy with countries that didn't ban slavery yet?

 

[Pshek]

There are Interest Groups in favor of abolition, but the slaves themselves do not have any political strength with which to support these groups. Their way of getting their voices heard is more direct, by necessity.

Will slaveowners IG get political strength from slaves? In US it was important issue and one of the reasons for abolitionism, since without slaves plantators would lose their influence through free votes.

 

[Claudius84]

Will slaveowners IG get political strength from slaves? In US it was important issue and one of the reasons for abolitionism, since without slaves plantators would lose their influence through free votes.

I think indirectly because I've read somewhere that wealth will influence political strength. And if there are slaves the plantation owners can keep money for wages in their pockets which will make them more powerful then if they have to hire normal workers.

 

[Ninking]

United States had escaped slaves practice abolitionist activism in the Free States, apart from outright slave rebellions this is the closest I can think of.

Well then they're not a slave anymore, but a freed and former slave

 

[kviiri]

Well then they're not a slave anymore, but a freed and former slave

Yes, but in a sense they're still dependent on their slave background for performing this function, and it happened with such regularity I would think it's ok to represent this as a baked-in effect of slave pops. No one could prevent their slaves from escaping with 100% certainty and agitating against the cruel institution afterwards.

 

[geogus]

Best vocal support for slaves should be tax collectors, as an video tutorial told when i was learning vic2, you should aim for abolition ASAP because slaves were walking and talking tax exceptions

 

[Grave461]

There are Interest Groups in favor of abolition, but the slaves themselves do not have any political strength with which to support these groups. Their way of getting their voices heard is more direct, by necessity.

How well will Vic3 handle situations like what happened in the USA leading up to the Civil War? For example, the US was hesitant to ratify certain territories into statehood, in fear that they would take a pro-slavery stance.

If we were in a similar situation in Vic3, would the game "know" which IG to support in regards to slavery/abolition (based perhaps on geographic regions, ie; north/south), or will we more likely see arbitrary blobs where a state or two in the north may be pro-slavery, one or two in the south favor abolitionists? In the US at least, it was very geographically based (hence the reluctancy to ratify statehood for southern territories at the time).

Would love to try and navigate through my own A House Divided scenario.

 

[Dayvit78]

Best vocal support for slaves should be tax collectors, as an video tutorial told when i was learning vic2, you should aim for abolition ASAP because slaves were walking and talking tax exceptions

You mean in the game right?

Because in real life, the tax collectors were collecting tarriffs and consumption taxes - slaves had no impact on the amount or ability to collect the taxes. There was no income tax until the end of the Vicky period.

 

[lachek]

How well will Vic3 handle situations like what happened in the USA leading up to the Civil War? For example, the US was hesitant to ratify certain territories into statehood, in fear that they would take a pro-slavery stance.

If we were in a similar situation in Vic3, would the game "know" which IG to support in regards to slavery/abolition (based perhaps on geographic regions, ie; north/south), or will we more likely see arbitrary blobs where a state or two in the north may be pro-slavery, one or two in the south favor abolitionists? In the US at least, it was very geographically based (hence the reluctancy to ratify statehood for southern territories at the time).

Would love to try and navigate through my own A House Divided scenario.

This is entirely emergent from the simulation, which at the moment runs a little something like this:
1. Wealthy Aristocrats are more likely to support the Landowner Interest Group, which in the USA's case is called the Southern Planters and have a pro-Slavery stance
2. The American south has a lucrative Plantation industry at game start, with potential to expand that doesn't exist in the north
3. Pops in incorporated states gain more Political Strength than Pops in unincorporated states
4. Wealthier Pops gain more Political Strength on account of their wealth
5. More Political Strength means more power over the country's Laws, and a stronger reaction if the player tries to move away from favored Laws

Which means that it's the relative profitability of the American south's slave plantations that cause the Southern Planters to have the political support they do. If the player nurtures this type of plantation economy the institution of slavery will become an even more dominant and important fixture of US politics, whereas if they shift their economy towards manufacturing industries (perhaps in part fueled by resources from plantations in UNincorporated states, where the Aristocrats may be wealthy but not as politically empowered) or service/government workers, they may be able to effect a political shift away from slavery without a civil war.

 

[Grave461]

This is entirely emergent from the simulation, which at the moment runs a little something like this:
1. Wealthy Aristocrats are more likely to support the Landowner Interest Group, which in the USA's case is called the Southern Planters and have a pro-Slavery stance
2. The American south has a lucrative Plantation industry at game start, with potential to expand that doesn't exist in the north
3. Pops in incorporated states gain more Political Strength than Pops in unincorporated states
4. Wealthier Pops gain more Political Strength on account of their wealth
5. More Political Strength means more power over the country's Laws, and a stronger reaction if the player tries to move away from favored Laws

Which means that it's the relative profitability of the American south's slave plantations that cause the Southern Planters to have the political support they do. If the player nurtures this type of plantation economy the institution of slavery will become an even more dominant and important fixture of US politics, whereas if they shift their economy towards manufacturing industries (perhaps in part fueled by resources from plantations in UNincorporated states, where the Aristocrats may be wealthy but not as politically empowered) or service/government workers, they may be able to effect a political shift away from slavery without a civil war.

Gotta say, the more I read, the more I'm excited about this game. I love that the game has the framework to accurately, yet dynamically simulate these complicated situations without having to shoehorn them into fired off events.

Thank you for explaining the mechanics behind the situation in the USA; was exactly what I was hoping to hear!

 

[Buttons12345]

Presumably none, they have no political representation, not even informally. Not all pops are gonna belong to an IG, some will be politically uninvolved.

I think they should have a group they support even if they have no political power or representation.

 

[Belph]

This is entirely emergent from the simulation, which at the moment runs a little something like this:
1. Wealthy Aristocrats are more likely to support the Landowner Interest Group, which in the USA's case is called the Southern Planters and have a pro-Slavery stance
2. The American south has a lucrative Plantation industry at game start, with potential to expand that doesn't exist in the north
3. Pops in incorporated states gain more Political Strength than Pops in unincorporated states
4. Wealthier Pops gain more Political Strength on account of their wealth
5. More Political Strength means more power over the country's Laws, and a stronger reaction if the player tries to move away from favored Laws

Which means that it's the relative profitability of the American south's slave plantations that cause the Southern Planters to have the political support they do. If the player nurtures this type of plantation economy the institution of slavery will become an even more dominant and important fixture of US politics, whereas if they shift their economy towards manufacturing industries (perhaps in part fueled by resources from plantations in UNincorporated states, where the Aristocrats may be wealthy but not as politically empowered) or service/government workers, they may be able to effect a political shift away from slavery without a civil war.

Does this mean a "reverse civil war" is possible if the player overly feeds southern interests causing northern abolitionists to secede?

 

[Anic]

Best vocal support for slaves should be tax collectors, as an video tutorial told when i was learning vic2, you should aim for abolition ASAP because slaves were walking and talking tax exceptions

Funnily IRL it's quite the opposite, as slaves imports are easily taxed, but farmer wages or immigrants entry was not taxed. But by the looks of it in Vic3 slave liberation is probably fiscal positive, as fiscal revenues seems to be mainly poll and income taxes, not consumption taxes on a small amount of goods and imports, as more usual at the time.