Was there any legal basis for independence and the will of the people as the source of the states power?

>>17823970 (OP)
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)

No there was never a legal Basis, the British just let them develop it and then will take it back when its convenient

Yes, the Magna Carta tended to be read as a type of social contract, 1628 Petition of Right, and 1689 English Bill of Rights did. If you look outside of the Anglophone world, the Spanish speakign world had quite a few.

The 1512, Law of Burgons has an implict one and the 1542 New Laws set a legal precent for natural liberty. I know they had some were they stated Indian rulers were part of a social contract with Spanish crown as well. Much later examples include the 1812 Constitución de Cádiz, 1811 Constitución Federal de Venezuela were later examples building from it.

A Nonwestern example would be the Japanese, “Seventeen-Article Constitution” written by Prince Shōtoku. There is some evidence is more of a moral aspiration or code but it sets up reciprocal obligations that appeal to Confucian ethics and Buddhist ethics and goals.

>>17822777

Although, not entirely a legal precedent and later than Shotoku's works there were also medieval accounts of social contracts that were a mix of civil law and in some cases canon law connected to just war theory via Augustine. This argubaly is the source of the natural right tradition in contrast to the reciprocal right model of the later Enlightenment and arguably Prince Shotoku.

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

>>17824214
Man whoever said that was full of shit

>>17824217
how so?

>>17824123
damn he man who invented guns really did change the world

>>17824269
I bet it was that Alexander Hamilton fellow

They made a convincing case for it, and America still stands to this day having outlasted many other tyrannical regimes and helping give rise to new republics in their place.

>>17824277
God made men but Samuel Colt made them equal.

>>17823970 (OP)
The British formed charters which granted the colonies certain rights including the right to be exempt from most taxes (except sales tax on goods to Britain). The British then changed the charters (I'm not joking). This was an illegal act which breached the agreement.

Americans revolted a good deal after this occurred but this was one of the first major grievances that led to the revolution.

>>17823970 (OP)
>will of the people

A minority of slavers and landlords isn't "the people".

>A minority of slavers and landlords isn't "the people".

>>17823970 (OP)
Yes. The theory had been bandied around since the 1530s in the School of Salamanca, which was expanded into Natural Law theory by Grotius and Vattel. The Dutch, Swedes and Russians referred to those when the British were getting a bit too fresh with those country's ships during the conflict.
So did the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Congress.

>>17824092
>Yes, the Magna Carta tended to be read as a type of social contract
The Magna Carta was a bill of rights that the king sold to the nobility. It is wholly the king's, and neither a right or an expression of the will of the people.

>>17823970 (OP)
>Was there any legal basis for independence and the will of the people as the source of the states power?
Not under the British legal system, but you can always just invent your own legal system like they did.

Obviously. A shame the Founders didn't work harder on the Constitution of that said power though