How did European states control colonial governors before modern transportation and communication?

[civfanatic]

What exactly prevented the governor of a distant territory - say, the Spanish Governor-General of the Philippines during the 16th or 17th century - from simply usurping power and ruling the colony as if it were his own personal fiefdom, similar to what Muhammad Ali Pasha did in Ottoman Egypt in the early 19th century? There is no way that the Spanish authorities in Madrid or even Mexico City could know exactly what was going on in the Philippines, given the technology of the time, and there would be a communication lag of many months between the central and peripheral authorities. Given this scenario, how could central authorities maintain effective checks on the governors or viceroys they dispatched to distant lands, and ensure that that the colonial empire did not fragment into different quasi-independent states run by viceroys-turned-kings?

 

[Avernite]

What exactly prevented the governor of a distant territory - say, the Spanish Governor-General of the Philippines during the 16th or 17th century - from simply usurping power and ruling the colony as if it were his own personal fiefdom, similar to what Muhammad Ali Pasha did in Ottoman Egypt in the early 19th century? There is no way that the Spanish authorities in Madrid or even Mexico City could know exactly what was going on in the Philippines, given the technology of the time, and there would be a communication lag of many months between the central and peripheral authorities. Given this scenario, how could central authorities maintain effective checks on the governors or viceroys they dispatched to distant lands, and ensure that that the colonial empire did not fragment into different quasi-independent states run by viceroys-turned-kings?

Well, I don't know about Spain precisely, but important factors probably include:

1) The governor has underlings who are only underlings because the Company/Crown/Country says so. If he declares independence, they can start plotting.
2) There are people coming in from the home country with European necessities on a regular schedule, and the recent arrivals might be tempted to fight against a declaration of independence by someone they know nothing about.
3) The governor wants a cushy retirement and wife back home after his term of service, not stick around in the backend of nowhere for the rest of his life.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Spain did go to great lengths to keep the colonies subservient to the motherland by regulating trade and industries in ways that seem terribly inefficient today. Like forcing all trade through Cadiz or prohibiting free trade between the colonies and other countries. Those measures had political intent and more or less worked as intended.

 

[icedt729]

The colonies generally existed in order to facilitate trade networks within or between empires, so by declaring independence and going it alone you're potentially cutting yourself out of much of your revenues. You also lose the protection of your metropole and become an easier target for rival empires. And, whatever troops, supplies or funding you'd normally get from the metropole would dry up.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

What exactly prevented the governor of a distant territory - say, the Spanish Governor-General of the Philippines during the 16th or 17th century - from simply usurping power and ruling the colony as if it were his own personal fiefdom, similar to what Muhammad Ali Pasha did in Ottoman Egypt in the early 19th century? There is no way that the Spanish authorities in Madrid or even Mexico City could know exactly what was going on in the Philippines, given the technology of the time, and there would be a communication lag of many months between the central and peripheral authorities. Given this scenario, how could central authorities maintain effective checks on the governors or viceroys they dispatched to distant lands, and ensure that that the colonial empire did not fragment into different quasi-independent states run by viceroys-turned-kings?

"Audiencias".

Spain was quick to impose a high panel of judges ("Audiencia") in each colonial region, with extensive legal authority, to usurp the powers of the governors and keep them in check. Spanish colonial governors & viceroys had very little actual power. Didn't always work, and there are a few cases of Audiencia judges basically overreaching and becoming wild tyrants themselves, but they could be easily replaced.

There were also a myriad of other bureaucratic positions (e.g. treasury clerks) where candidates were very carefully cultivated & screened back in Spain, and served as the de facto eyes and ears of the crown on the ground, and recorded & reported everything back to Spain. IIRC, officials of the Audiencia had access to the royal signet and could seal the colonial treasury in an instant, depriving the putative usurper of access to money for his nefarious plans. A usurper who can't pay his troops is basically finished.

Finally, high governors were not typically the adventuring type, but rather nobles, jockeying for rewards, position and favor for themselves & their relatives back in the Spanish court. They had no particular affinity for their overseas appointments, and saw it merely as a temporary ordeal to put up with, make some money and go home as soon as they could. And they were regularly replaced - no one really stayed long enough to become a local hero.

Many of the military and administrative positions were also relatively short-term. If you're on a three-year overseas service contract, why are you going to throw your future life & career in Spain away to support some nincompoop's aspirations?

Fleets were also relatively regular. Yes, they took time. But an usurper was not likely able to consolidate his position before the arrest warrant arrived. If the local Audiencia doesn't react immediately, and chooses to wait for communications with Spain, they might have a year or two at best. That's not really enough time to do much of anything.

This is not a problem only Spain faced. Every colonial power did until the late 19th Century, and operated on some version of this formula. But the powerful "Audiencia" was the Spanish signature instrument, which others emulated only weakly.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

"Audiencias".

Word of the day.

An excellent explanation of something I did not know.

 

[DarthJF]

Also, if you cut off your ties with the motherland they wouldn't back you against unruly natives deciding now is the time to break free.

 

[DoomBunny]

Supposing a colonial governor did wish to get power for himself in this way (not that he would really gain much by doing this), there wasn't really much of a practical way to do it. What troops would you use to enforce your will and prevent the motherland simply restoring order? The regulars, if there are any, are all likely to be loyal to the state, because without the state all their authority and their entire career goes down the drain, you have little to offer them. The local troops are split between your own people and the natives (sometimes there were both, sometimes just one), but again you have to convince them to follow you, and also they have to be up to the task of fighting.

Add to that the fact that you will ruin your reputation/career and that of your family, that you already control the colony so aren't gaining much, and that you'll probably lose your head for it, and there really isn't much motive to do this.

Certainly however, one might stretch their authority and doctor their communications for personal gain of a political or financial nature. For example, the locals might accidentally pay a couple extra coins in unofficial tax, or a neighbouring local state might do something to provoke an invasion without any orders from the mother country.

 

[Kgw]

"Audiencias".
(...)
Fleets were also relatively regular. Yes, they took time. But an usurper was not likely able to consolidate his position before the arrest warrant arrived. If the local Audiencia doesn't react immediately, and chooses to wait for communications with Spain, they might have a year or two at best. That's not really enough time to do much of anything.

Agreed. Also, let's remember that one of the main links in Philippines were NOT fleets with mainland Spain, but with New Spain (Mexico) a.k.a "Navío de Manila", which is somewhat shorter & faster than crossing the whole Asia and circumnavigating Africa (a route that was not exactly sure)

 

[viale]

I might be reiterating some points already raised but besides keeping the land forces loyal, how do you as a newly self-appointed king of a sovereign colony defend against the onslaught that will be coming? how long does it take to build a galleon? or something smaller if we're only considering coastal defenses? such a ship takes time to build, needs adequate shipyards, materials and a crew to operate(and then we get to the lack of knowledge/experience of a newly raised crew versus the colonizing nations) Even if given a whole year before a punishing expedition arrives I have a hard time believing you would be able to construct a defensive fleet.

You will also be cut off from any kind of trade since protectionism is the norm during this era, no one would want to trade with you since you would be a) a pariah state and b) threaten their internal market/trade network.

Being a pariah state is probably the biggest hindrance since anyone aiding you would very publicly take a stand against your previous overlord, for no real gain. Similarly, and perhaps even bigger, your very existence challenges the belief/conviction that colonies should adhere to the whims of the colonizing country; your very existence is a threat to the existing world order.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Agreed. Also, let's remember that one of the main links in Philippines were NOT fleets with mainland Spain, but with New Spain (Mexico) a.k.a "Navío de Manila", which is somewhat shorter & faster than crossing the whole Asia and circumnavigating Africa (a route that was not exactly sure)

AFAIK, there were no regular fleets between mainland Spain from the Philippines. The regular connection was always Manila-Acapulco (New Spain) ships. If a direct exception needed to be made, it was by circumnavigating South America, not Africa (not that it was any more pleasant). Spain didn't have support stations along the Atlantic-Indian Ocean route.

I should add a couple more checks I forgot.

- The Church. This was sometimes a major check. A governor, particularly those in more remote colonies, might be able to intimidate the local Audiencia into collaborating with his schemes, but the clergy were a much harder nut to crack. They were independent, very noisy and squealed back to Spain about everything and anything, through their own channels. And I'm not talking merely the usual native-lovin' hippie friars. The colonial Bishop or Archbishop was a pretty powerful figure in his own right, and had his own apparatus of commissioners of the Holy Office and courts of the inquisition. And the crown did not really try to reconcile them - squabbles between Priests and Soldiers were frequent, and the crown seemed to like it that way.

- The "Visitador". This was irregular and unnanounced, but colonies were subject to surprise inquiries by a "Visitor", a special royal agent with license to suspend & override an Audiencia and set up his own court of inquiry (the "Visita") and go through anything he pleased. He had the power to dismiss a governor on the spot. Theoretically a surprise, Visitadors could arrive any time. Nonetheless, they usually only came when the government back in Spain received complaints, or in the aftermath of new directives (government wanted to check if they were being implemented). So while no one expects the Spanish Visitador, they can sometimes guess.

- The "Residencia". Another uniquely Spanish colonial institution. The "Residencia" was an end-of-term trial of the colonial governor. It didn't matter if the guy was a beloved five-star saint that blew rainbows out his ass. Colonial governors were always - always - put through a "residencia" - an arduous trial and audit, at the end of their term, by a special judicial board, usually presided by the incoming governor. It lasted at least three months - sixty days to allow anyone in the colony to file complaints, followed by the ordeal of a thirty-day trial, going through his entire record, actions, judgments & financial accounts with a meticulous fine-tooth comb, sniffing for any irregularities, no matter how small. Given the unpleasantness of a Residencia, and its potential high-stakes consequences, I am actually surprised colonial governors who knew they might get into trouble didn't just bail the colony near the end of their term. I guess the looming "Residencia" threat counts as a kind of check - governors had better watch their step through their entire term, since any stray naughty thought can come back and bit them in the ass in the end.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

You will also be cut off from any kind of trade since protectionism is the norm during this era, no one would want to trade with you since you would be a) a pariah state and b) threaten their internal market/trade network.

While I agree with your first point, this I take issue with. There were plenty of foreign (Dutch, English & French) merchants and smugglers hankering to break into the Spanish empire, and would be delighted at the chance your rebellion would allow. You will be faced with lots of problems, yes, but trade wouldn't be one of them.

 

[viale]

I would argue that officially the Dutch, English and French would rally behind Spain against a hypothetical break-away republic due to it's mere existence. And therefore wouldn't allow their merchants trading with you. unofficially I suppose they would very much do anything in their power to weaken their rival. It's actually a bit of a tough issue to to argue for/against since I feel both actions (do/don't trade) have merit, depending on what you focus on.

 

[Avernite]

I would argue that officially the Dutch, English and French would rally behind Spain against a hypothetical break-away republic due to it's mere existence. And therefore wouldn't allow their merchants trading with you. unofficially I suppose they would very much do anything in their power to weaken their rival. It's actually a bit of a tough issue to to argue for/against since I feel both actions (do/don't trade) have merit, depending on what you focus on.

Come again? Dutch merchants traded with the Spanish Netherlands basically throughout the 80 years war, often being the most vital logistics link for the Army of Flanders. And you think they'd stop trading with someone for rebelling against the Spanish?

 

[Culise]

It's also worth noting that we don't need to simply restrict ourselves to hypothetical examples. France, Spain, and the Dutch were certainly all willing to rally against the British in support of an actual break-away republic, the first two officially and the last as a co-belligerent. It would be an excellent excuse to undercut a rival if the rebellion looked like it stood any chance at success, and Spain would be no more immune to that than the British historically were. Perhaps the French might side with the Spanish after the War of Spanish Succession and before the Napoleonic Wars during that period of geopolitical and dynastic accord between the two countries, but I'm not sure why British and Dutch would ever decline to both open a lucrative new market and prune the Spanish back a bit. It's not like any of the nations in question really worried about things like setting a bad precedent for their own colonies at all, which is the only reason I can think of for some pan-European, anti-colonist position. I would suspect that the best the Spanish could hope for is that their European fellows would sit back and take a position of official neutrality that restricts active military support to the rebellious colony.

Also, if the fact that my example above includes everyone ganging up on the British is concerning, don't forget that the Dutch, English, and French also declined to rally behind Spain against any actual break-away republics during the various Spanish-American wars of independence.

 

[DoomBunny]

Really your main issue isn't winning the backing of foreign powers, rather it is winning the backing of the locals. If the governor alone chose to rebel then the most likely outcome is that the locals simply sigh, walk up to his mansion with some flaming torches, and arrest the idiot who tried to royally screw up their lives.

 

[Kovax]

The OP's question comes down to the ancient one about control of any colony, which was addressed millennia ago and recorded among the laws of Hammurabi, if I recall. In essence, as a king, you send someone who is loyal to YOU, with family and other personal connections/assets locally, not someone from the distant colony who has personal ties to it. Their power derives entirely from you, and without it, the locals would choose someone else to lead them, not your appointed governor, so his position is solely backed up by your own authority and support.

So, if the governor rebels, the next thing that happens is that the locals remove the hated foreign governor (in a permanent manner) and put a member of their own people (or other personal favorite) on the throne. The governor will remain loyal to his own sovereign, because that loyalty and his active suppression of any rebellions are the only things keeping him in power, and probably the only things keeping his head on his shoulders.