What are the objective minimum prerequisite components necessary for "black" or "African American" people in the United States to form their own modern independent sovereign nation-state?
Why this question is not a duplicate.
There are several questions and answers at Politics SE which address parts of the premise of this question, including:
First of all there is no etched-in-stone way to become a sovereign state. Some follow military ways e.g. Bangladesh seceding from Pakistan and becoming an independent country. Some follow political ways e.g. Pakistan and India carved out of united British India. There is no way to get the entire international community on board as interests of all states vary. They rarely agree on anything anyways.
You could say that a state is considered independent if it is considered a person in international law.
There are however two theories which can be considered as "How to be Independent" guides. They are:
There is no commonly accepted definition. Every government decides for themselves which other states they recognize. Often these are not objective criteria (defined territory, permanent population, functioning government etc.) but rather political considerations.
There's only one international set of criteria - the recognition by other countries. No political power is interested in creating an objective set of criteria - the power of recognition of a country is too meaningful for their national interests.
However, the theoreticals can state the criteria for the country. It is the internal and external sovereignty - the ability to decide about themselves without acceptance from other country.
Because sovereignty is a bit tricky - no country is fully sovereign in that sense, that it could do practically anything - but there's a meaningful criterion of sovereignty - a sovereign country can limit its sovereignty itself.
The right of self-determination is typically a right of a "nation", i.e. a group of people who share a national identity (e.g. Kurds or Palestinians or Navajos or Kosovars or Scots) who are the dominant population of a compact and contiguous geographic area. Self-determination is a right that belongs to "peoples" not to states.
There are three different things to define here:
State: "A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government" (Wiki definition).
This is basically just a community (usually in a specified territory) that was ruled by a specific government.
It may or may not have been sovereign.
Nation: A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history (Wiki).
Note that a nation has no required geographical tie-in (as an extreme example, consider the nation of Roma, or post-Diaspora-pre-modern-Israel Jews). But they must/should, as a rule, share history, culture and language (never thought I'd quote Stalin on a Politics.SE :)
The idea of a nation and a state being the same thing ("Nation-state") is fairly new in modern politics (it came about as one of the consequences/results of Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 30-year-war in Europe, when the concept of "Westphalian sovereignty" was introduced).
But none of those questions deal with the precarious current situation of historically so-called "Colored", "Negro" or "black", "African American" people in the United States, who have not yet formed an independent, sovereign nation or nation-state, and let us suppose who could spontaneously decide to do so at any moment.
Considering that a "people" or "nation" might not have a territory, for example, the "post-Diaspora-pre-modern-Israel Jews" as described at the answer at the last linked question, and The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (Sovereign Military Order of Malta), which is technically a country without land, see What is the Only Recognized Country in the World Without Land?
What makes the SMOM a country?
This is the difficult but interesting question. After their ejection from Malta, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta were given extraterritoriality in their land holdings in Rome, and were not only treated as a kind of government in exile, but had diplomatic missions, and were, and still recognized by a great many nations. Which makes it kind of like a country. Right?
How many countries recognize the Sovereign Military order of Malta?
Is it a real country? Amazingly, the order has diplomatic relations with 106 countries, official relations with a further 6 states, and is even recognized by the EU. But, as Tyler Durden said in Fight Club, sticking feathers up your arse does not make you a chicken. The status of the Order in international law has been open to discussion. The Order describes itself as a “sovereign subject of international law.” And its two headquarters in Rome have all been granted extraterritoriality by Italy and Malta. These are; the Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68, where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet, and the Villa del Priorato di Malta on the Aventine, which hosts the Grand Priory of Rome – Fort St. Angelo on the island of Malta, the Embassy of the Order to Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to Italy.
So whilst it exists as a kind of poor mans Holy See, the Holy See controls the Vatican City, the SMOM hasn’t had a permanent country since getting evicted from Malta in 1798. But Italy, where it is located, recognizes, in addition to extraterritoriality, the exercise by SMOM of all the prerogatives of sovereignty in its headquarters. Therefore, Italian sovereignty and SMOM sovereignty uniquely coexist without overlapping.
What does the UN Say?
The United Nations does not classify it as a “non-member state” or “intergovernmental organization” but as one of the “other entities” having received a standing invitation to participate as observers. So observer status in the UN, much like Palestine has. They do not though have an internet TLD, nor a country dialing code (which would be a bit pointless). Their status is ambiguous, to say the least, with a number of scholars arguing for and against it being a subject of international law, and thus a country.