I feel like I’ve read plenty about the historical materialist understanding about how the US constitution was formed and its class characteristics, but a lot less about the actual act of declaring independence. I do know how a bunch of the founding fathers made fortunes from land speculation via genocide and stealing indigenous land; and how the Brits wouldn’t let the yanks do that because they didn’t want to start another incredibly expensive war with the native peoples. I’ve also read of Gerald Horne’s thesis about how the founding fathers were worried that GB would totally outlaw slavery. I have a lot respect for Horne, he’s great but frankly I think that theory has little to no concrete evidence supporting it. But those two are the only materialist analyses of independence that I’ve seen so far.
The East India Trading Company in some ways had more power than King George at the time, commanding King George's decisions (which was helped along by King George's well-known personal issues which made him more susceptible to cunningly worded suggestions and pressure), too.
That company took and took and wanted its material losses pushed onto the colonies until the colonies' bourgeoisie (and their working class followers) pushed back.
Pre-modern corporations were still a fuck.