Gerald Horne's thesis is essentially correct. The British Empire was more willing to pivot away from slavery and they did so because they realized constant slave rebellions destabilized the wider empire. Moving away from slavery was a worthwhile sacrifice if say, company rule in India was secure. Horne talked about how colonial troops, as in soldiers levied from the colonized population, would be used to put down colonial uprisings from a different colony. This was pretty much practiced by every single major empire like Rome in order to divide and conquer the colonized subjects. There were Algerian troops when the Vietnamese waged their national liberation struggle against the French (and as the story goes, Algerian POWs were reeducated by the Vietnamese and once they returned to French Algeria, they decided to wage their own national liberation struggle). But once an African slave has a musket in his hands and military training, there's no way to re-enslave him without the slave soldier turning on his masters.

Meanwhile, the ruling class of the US white settler population derived their entire fortune from slavery. Obviously, a pivot away from slavery would be completely unacceptable because they would be financially ruined. The idea of armed African colonized soldiers was also completely unacceptable even if used as shock troopers against the Indigenous. Notice how outside of a brief period where buffalo soldiers were a thing, the US never really recruited Black people as front line soldiers in order to steal land from the Indigenous. Black people would be forced to do almost every demeaning and toiling tasks as slaves, but dying for the sake of stealing Indigenous land had to be reserved for white settler soldiers. The settler-colonial state's fear of armed Black people exists to this very day. Why else would Reagan sign that gun control bill into law? It was because the BPP demonstrated with fully loaded rifles.

deleted by creator

It wasn't just the potential cost of another war with native peoples, it was also their reduced ability to control or extract wealth from inland colonization compared to the coast.

I find the fear of abolition by the British somewhat hard to believe, the slave economy of the 13 colonies at the time was predominantly tobacco (and sugar elsewhere), which was waning in viability as the founders saw it. Meanwhile the abolition movement in Britain barely existed at the time of the American revolution, let alone being seen as an imminent prospect in the lead up to it. Even for decades afterwards there was far more British focus on opposing any continuation of the Atlantic slave trade (something the USA actively joined them in) than abolition of the practice itself; after all by then the vast majority of slave ships were destined for their rivals in South and Central America, while the British colonies that used slave labour were self-sustaining.

Bourgeois revolution

I can't quite remember, but Sakai might have had a take on this in settlers. But really, it generally boils down to the interests of the British empire conflicted with the interests of profit and capital, and so the only tangentially attached American capitalists were able to rebel.

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

England had trouble managing a colony that was across the atlantic so they kept hiking up taxes to make it worth it. This pissed off the proto-bourgeoisie who liked having money, so the proto-bourgeoisie among the American merchants and planters decided to take a gamble and declare independence. Also the American ruling class wanted to expand westward into indigenous territory in spite of treaties the British crown had with indigenous tribes. Granted, it's not as though the British crown was going to honor those treaties forever, but the crown wanted to break those treaties on their own terms, when they thought it was the right time, while the ruling class among colonists wanted unfettered indigenous genocide, and the crown wasn't letting them have that.

So basically proto-booj complaining about "muh taxes and muh regulations"

EDIT: Your post says all this so I'm not sure I understand the question. There doesn't need to be much more to it.

reading veblen has made me depressed

feels like everyone just ends up ditching material conditions and mostly discount it as a secondary effect in favor of status signaling once socioeconomic conditions improve past a certain point with the end result being

someone needs to invent the field of ideological engineering