Under What Authority?

[billisonboard]

The question came up elsewhere, and I paraphrase, "Is the government "us" or "them"?" It got me wondering (with Independence Day so recently being celebrated):

With what authority did the Second Congressional Congress declare that the colonies were independent?

According to one historian, commenting on the source of the Congress' power:

The appointment of the delegates to both these congresses was generally by popular conventions, though in some instances by state assemblies. But in neither case can the appointing body be considered the original depositary of the power by which the delegates acted; for the conventions were either self-appointed "committees of safety" or hastily assembled popular gatherings, including but a small fraction of the population to be represented, and the state assemblies had no right to surrender to another body one atom of the power which had been granted to them, or to create a new power which should govern the people without their will. The source of the powers of congress is to be sought solely in the acquiescence of the people, without which every congressional resolution, with or without the benediction of popular conventions or state legislatures, would have been a mere brutum fulmen; and, as the congress unquestionably exercised national powers, operating over the whole country, the conclusion is inevitable that the will of the whole people is the source of national government in the United States, even from its first imperfect appearance in the second continental congress.. Cyclopædia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899. (emphasis added)

So did a group of politicians simply assume onto themselves the power, act with it, and it was okay because people went along with it?

[safeharbor37]

So did a group of politicians simply assume onto themselves the power, act with it, and it was okay because people went along with it?

Pretty much.
If we were ruled by an absolute dictator, there would still be a government. As a rule, a government cannot exist for very long without at least the acquiescence of the people. That we have a government "of, by and for the people" is an invention and has nothing to do with our actual government, but it's a nice thought. The degree that we enjoy a government "of, by and for the people" depends on our involvement in the process of governance. Certainly, we get the government we deserve.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> The degree that we enjoy a government "of, by and for the people" depends on our involvement in the process of governance. <<<


...well said...

[Deleted]

No. They had to go back and sell it their constituents, they could not vote for Independence or ratify the articles of confederation without their home government approval.

[wyouser]

As I recall from College classes about 1/3 of the colonists favored independance, another 1/3 remained loyal to the King of England, while the final 1/3 just wanted to be left alone to provide for their families. So to Bills point...did a group of politicians simply assume unto themselves the power, act with it, and it was ok because people went along with it? Interesting thought. As to what authority for declaring independance, one would have to look at 18th century views by Locke, Rousseau etc on the formation of government.

[wyouser]

As I recall from College classes about 1/3 of the colonists favored independance, another 1/3 remained loyal to the King of England, while the final 1/3 just wanted to be left alone to provide for their families. So to Bills point...did a group of politicians simply assume unto themselves the power, act with it, and it was ok because people went along with it? Interesting thought. As to what authority for declaring independance, one would have to look at 18th century views by Locke, Rousseau etc on the formation of government.

[safeharbor37]

The appointment of the delegates to both these congresses was generally by popular conventions, though in some instances by state assemblies. But in neither case can the appointing body be considered the original depositary of the power by which the delegates acted; for the conventions were either self-appointed "committees of safety" or hastily assembled popular gatherings, including but a small fraction of the population to be represented, and the state assemblies had no right to surrender to another body one atom of the power which had been granted to them, or to create a new power which should govern the people without their will. The source of the powers of congress is to be sought solely in the acquiescence of the people, without which every congressional resolution, with or without the benediction of popular conventions or state legislatures, would have been a mere brutum fulmen; and, as the congress unquestionably exercised national powers, operating over the whole country, the conclusion is inevitable that the will of the whole people is the source of national government in the United States, even from its first imperfect appearance in the second continental congress.. Cyclopædia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Continental_Congress

[wyouser]

ok great...sorry for the double post..we left handers come equipped with very "thick" thumbs

[handyman2]

Have not looked it up but relying on my history class of many years ago i recall that not all wanted to join and did not immediately join. However using persuasion by the other colonies that it would give more security if all joined then they finally agreed. There were still even then many questions to be worked out about what currencies would be accepted between colonies as some used English pounds others gold and silver coinage by weight. Etc.
keep in mind at that time only land holders were allowed to vote and choose who would represent them.