You mean the collective people of all the United Kingdom? Should the rest of the United Kingdom have gotten a vote as to whether or not the states should secede?
The Declaration of Independence was speaking of the unanimous colonies as "one people" in relation to "another," namely England. It was not speaking of, say, New York in relation to Virginia.
The "One People" must include England to be consistent with your explanation.
It is for that reason I say your interpretation is wrong. The states existed as independent entities before the Revolution, and they only banded together to face their common adversary, the United Kingdom. (Union.)
It wasn't speaking of future generations splitting from the collective, it was speaking of "abolishing" the form of government and creating a new one. It was not abolishing the Union and creating a new one.
It was abolishing the "Union of the Crowns" and creating the "Union of the States". It was separating from an existing Union. Their flag is even called the "Union Jack."
And while we're at it, this seems like a good time to point out that they formed a Confederacy... a slave owning confederacy of slave states.
The Union, (the British) offered freedom to their slaves. (Lord Dunmore's proclamation.) The Confederacy decided they needed a slave owning General from Virginia to lead their armies.
Sounds familiar somehow.
The "One People" must include England to be consistent with your explanation.
No. The Colonies thought of themselves as distinct people from England after 150 years since landing at Plymouth Rock. The "one people" were the people on our side of the Atlantic Ocean who were eight generations removed from England.
The states existed as independent entities before the Revolution, and they only banded together to face their common adversary, the United Kingdom.
The colonies existed as independent entities, but common in people who traveled back and forth and traded amongst them. They didn't "band together" just to face a common enemy (King George III), but also in support of the American idea of "governments... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
They also believed that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes," and that it should take "a long train of abuses and usurpations" before resorting to "throwing off such Government."
And while we're at it, this seems like a good time to point out that they formed a Confederacy.
What they formed was pre-Constitutional. They gave it up when they ratified the Constitution. Now they have to live within the confines of the Constitution and use Constitutional means to affect changes. A Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution should be pursued before resorting to nullification.
-PJ