Hello,
After watching some of "Knowing Better" describing the long history of chattel slavery existing in the USA after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, and some of the issues that preceded the formation of the country, there was mention of the outcome of the case between Somerset v. Stewart in 1772, where the legal precedent was ruled that slavery was not a natural state and the institution of slavery needed to be implemented by positive laws affirming it. Since this was in opposition to the idea that black people were inherently lesser than whites, and seemed to be a boost to the agenda of the abolitionist movement, I began to wonder whether this decision was more of a contributor to the start of the Revolutionary War than the idea of oppressive taxation or the Boston Tea Party activities, to maintain the status quo of chattel slavery to the benefit of rich American business owners and the like.
Is this an accurate assessment or has this idea already come up in contemporary discussions of American history?
Here's a previous answer of mine where, in relation to the 1619 Project, I discussed the role slavery and the desire to preserve it played in the American Revolution. I concluded that you cannot say that the Revolution was pursued mainly to protect slavery, but that the movement overall reflected the concerns and worldviews of wealthy Americans, a big portion of whom would be slaveholders. For both slaveholders and non-slaveholders slavery was something that had to be preserved as part of their effort to vindicate American liberty. Because, to them, slaves were mere property and property was sacred, so Britain or anyone else moving against slavery was violating their freedoms.
In the Somerset decision, many Southern slaveholders saw the possibility of Britain trying to emancipate their human chattel. This was unacceptable, not only because of racist fears and economic expediency, but because it went against their sacred right of property and their right to determine their own laws. The need to protect their freedom (to rob another person of their own freedom) did influence many Americans, especially Southern Americans, and motivate them to join the Revolution. But it was not the only cause and purpose of the War of Independence, but another part, of varying importance depending on several factors, of the patchwork of liberties and rights Americans conceived as fundamental and thus fought for.
Additional comments: The role of slavery in the American Revolution has been re-examined relatively recently. The 1619 project is part of that, of course. This is more a question of historiography than history, though, so I think it's better for someone else to talk about that. I can mention that the Somerset doctrine was indeed a cornerstone of anti-slavery thought. In the United States, at least, the idea that slavery was an "unnatural" state that required positive local law to exist was widely accepted and preached by all anti-slavery men. Rebranded to the more American "Freedom National, Slavery Sectional" slogan, it was the basis of anti-slavery politics and then of the Republican Party. In a reaction against this, Southerners pushed for a radically different interpretation: that the Constitution, by recognizing slavery, had made it so that positive law was needed to abolish, not to establish, slavery.