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.
basically the moment you permanently set up a a new settler ruling class in a non-metropolitan area you've created a situation where the local elites of the colony and the metropole have conflicting interests. the settler ruling class want to concentrate wealth & power, the metropole requires them to be shipping it back. in this way it's a premodern phenomenon, and something that was streamlined out of capitalist accumulation. it was unfeasible to extract the wealth of the americas without sending loads of supervisors & labor over for good---the imperial conquest of africa ooth was carried out by people who mostly returned to the metropole & didn't need to stick around to compensate for shipping/communication times