Not really what they were pissy over, nor was it slave owners who were the driving force there. This was before cotton supercharged the Southern plantation economy, and much of the land to the west of the South was directly French or Spanish owned. The driving force was free farmers (or their poor relatives) in the north, mid-Atlantic, and Appalachia who lacked significant amounts of land. Sometimes, the people advocating for shitty policy overall aren’t the hyper-rich, but just ordinary folk who’ve been conditioned to see the dreaded ‘other’ as opportunity or obstacles to opportunity instead of fully realized human beings.

The core issue was genuinely over representation, an issue even English MPs admitted was a touch absurd. As long as the colonies lacked representation, an issue they were extensively familiar with by their own self-government, they were resistant to taxation; as long as they were resistant to taxation, Britain was reluctant to allow them to undertake any operations which might spark a war. The crown didn’t give a shit about genociding Native Americans, hell, they’d put forth plenty of effort of their own there; what it cared about was Americans not blundering into another expensive war that the Brits would have to foot the bill for.

What century was that again?