That is a circular dependency. If states make other states sovereign, how did the first state become sovereign?
They all became sovereign at once. It was a pact.
A pact among whom?
Among the rulers, kings, I presume.
I could say the independence war meant de facto, the Paris treaty established de jure sovereignty for the states. But maybe it was de jure as soon as the war was won.
A pact among whom?
State title holders, kings, counts, electors, stadtholders, bishops, etc.
So state title holders created the state? This is a chicken/egg situation.
The constitution states that is represents the people. Through what string of representatives are the people represented? Representation must trace back to the people at some point, not to states.
How were colony legislature established and populated? Was it by popular vote or by some other process?
I think the 13 colonies were set up by british royal charters to companies and groups or whatever, so its authorities were the king of britain
Dude, I think its safe to say that no answer is going to satisfy you… and if that’s the case, there’s no point in you asking these things 
So state title holders created the state? This is a chicken/egg situation.
I don’t see why. The state emerged from land ownership and colonization during the dark and middle ages. The same thing took place for American colonization.
That would be legitimate if you were colonizing a place for the first time. In that case everyone would be volunteering to create a government or would offer some tacit approval of the government by immigrating into its jurisdiction. But if people already live there, government is imposed on them.
The answer I would like to see is that a majority of people voluntarily delegated power to colony legislatures. Either this is the case, or it isn’t.
The answer I would like to see is that a majority of people voluntarily delegated power to colony legislatures. Either this is the case, or it isn’t.
Yet the colonies did have armies and courts and power, so what’s the point of your objection?
I don’t think you’re going to find what you’re looking for. How do you recognize it when the majority of people voluntarily delegate power to a government? If you’re looking at elections then you won’t find anything until the end of the 19th century, when women were allowed to vote.
Even if somehow you could find an historical reason for the legitimacy for previous states, how does that make current states legitimate? Involuntary taxation and regulations are the basis of all states everywhere in the world. Maybe you could define what makes a government “legitimate,” since according to any consistent ethical system a government is anything but legitimate.
The legitimacy of the US is dependent on the legitimacy of the colonies due to the ratification process. I agree that the US government is illegitimate, I just want to see if there is any evidence for the legitimacy of the colony legislatures. If there is, there is an argument for US legitimacy on the basis of popular will, if not, then there isn’t.
Were these legislatures popularly elected in any way, even if only landowning men were allowed to vote?
Again, I think you need to define a legitimate government. You seem to claim that if a legislature is properly elected then it has legitimacy. But how do the criminal actions of the state (stealing, forced monopoly, etc) become legitimate by the voting of some majority? Even if 100% of land owning men agreed to create some colonial government, that government is still illegitimate because it uses force against those who couldn’t vote and who disagree.
I feel like you’re hunting a unicorn, according to libertarian ethics a state is illegitimate by definition – you will never find a legitimate state in the entire history of humanity.
I think you buy into the State’s position when you use the term authority. States, or the individuals who control them, set up systems of control over geographic areas. This is, and always has been, a military arrangement among thieves and aggressors.
American colonies pursued a principle of self-rule. The aristocrats of the colonies set down the arrangement. There was a large portion of the colonies that did not want any form of government, particularly west of the Alleghany mountains. They were generally opposed to the Constitution. But at the same time they supported military efforts against native americans, who were competing for the same resources. When these same people refused the yoke of Federal control, the Government declared war on them - the Whiskey Rebellion is but one example. The U.S. government has been doing similar things ever since.
George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, military officers, pressed for a stronger federal government in order to defend the nation (the opinion of Washington) and to set up a mercantilist system (the opinion of Hamilton). There were others who waffled between liberty and state. Patrick Henry, for example, declined to attend the Constitutional Convention because it stank of monarchy, yet opposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions because he thought it would lead to civil war. I think Henry came to the opinion that since the US had gone to the Constitution, there was no going back without harming the military defense of the nation or the calamity of what was going on in France. Madison was pro-constitution, yet authored the Virginia Resolution. Jefferson was two people - the Jefferson before he became President and the Jefferson once he became President.
Even angels create leviathans such as the Constitution. Those who oppose are crushed.
I think you are reading what you want to read. I am looking for the best argument for the legitimacy of colonial legislatures. I don’t believe they were legitimate. This is more of a historical question. What claim did they make to the legitimacy of their power? If I know what their claim to power is/was, it can be attacked. And since the Constitution is dependent on the legitimacy of the colonial legislatures, its legitimacy falls with theirs.
I expect the legislatures claimed their power comes from democratic will. That is why I asked about elections.
I agree, I just want to know the history.
Why does simply being involuntary makes the government illegitimate. The representative nature of it is also irrelevant to me.
Oh now I see what you are looking for, this is different from the question you were asking before. I think we’ve already covered this:
Treaty of Westphalia → English monarchy → colonial charters → colonial legislatures → state legislators → federal Constitution
Of course the Treaty of Westphalia and similar agreements which recognize the legitimacy of states are based of circular reasoning. The powerful elites at the time came together and granted themselves legitimacy.
I think that’s the best you’re going to get when it comes to statists reasoning. Remember, statists think that it’s legitimate to put people in prison for growing the wrong type of plant. You’re not dealing with rational beings.
Also I think that this is a weak argument against the state. Very few people claim that the federal government is legitimate solely because a bunch of state’s (who were themselves legitimate) created it. Even if you disprove the “argument from previous legitimacy,” statists will just come back at you with arguments about popular consent, social contract, and “if you don’t like it you can leave!”
A stupid statist maybe. I could just say the colonial governments were legitimate in their own right, not because of any social contract bs.
The US Constitution was illegally ratified. Even if you buy into the notion that the Articles of Confederation were a legitimate contract the US Constitution is still invalid, as the ratification process did not follow the procedural rules set forth by the Articles of Confederation. The original authority on which the US Constitution was ratified is the gun.
Read Spooner.
Thank you for the last few answers. They helped answer my questions. In researching the Georgia Constitution I found this as its final piece of text: “This constitution was framed by a convention which assembled at Savannah October 1, 1776 in accordance with the recommendation of the Continental Congress that the people of the Colonies should form independent state governments. It was unanimously agreed to February 5, 1777. It was not submitted to the people.” Emphasis mine.
So while the delegates to the state constitutional convention may have been elected, there was no effort whatsoever to ratify the GA Constitution by popular vote, at least not until after ratification of the US Constitution.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. Once the colonies, the de facto ruling power in North America, decided that the constitution was good enough for them, it was so.
Dead on. The Constitution went into effect because the existing elites, already possessing power themselves, agreed to centralize in their mutual interests.