In this paper I question the state centred view or statism that is implied in interpretations of Kant's legal and political philosophy. First, I show that a world consisting of independent nation states is not an innocent assumption. In historical perspective, states are not solutions to anarchism or wars of religion but themselves results of violent struggles. Second, I explain the role of the state in Kant's legal and political philosophy. It appears to be a central category as Kant conceives of it as an a prior necessity. I argue, finally, that the state in Kant need not be equated with the nation state but is one part of public law that comprises national, international, and cosmopolitan law. When taking Kant's view on historical progress and reforms into account a range of historical and also federal forms of organization appear to be permissible.