The short answer is population density. The largest, densest and most sedentary populations in the territories colonised by English settlers were orders of magnitude smaller than those encountered in Mesoamerica and South America. While population estimates for the pre-conquest Americas are an archaeological guessing game at best, the city of Tenochtitlan alone had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 inhabitants, and the whole of Mesoamerica is somewhere in the tens of millions. This is at least ten times the size of the population of what is today the Northeast US and Canada, including the largest states such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Certainly there was nothing recorded of a sedentary civilisation on anything near the scale of the (polities known as the) Aztecs or Incas. The existing polities were also much more loosely organized as alliances of semisedentary tribes, rather than centralised tributary states based on a combination of military dominance and theocratic legitimacy.
In the context of fragile military balances (central Mexico) or ongoing civil wars (the Andes), Spanish conquistadors could insert themselves into the conflict as elite fighters equipped with dangerous weapons of unknown but considerable power. They were able to opportunistically ally themselves with one faction or another. They could also make use of the unfamiliarity of indigenous groups with their capabilities, and their audacious willingness to defy indigenous norms (or indeed European ones; I don't think anyone would have seen this as "fighting fair" at the time). They were willing and able to ambush, to kidnap and take hostages, to betray hospitality, as we see in Tenochtitlan, and most famously at Cajamarca. A few hundred Spaniards weren't really capable of conquering entire civilisations of millions of indigenous peoples by themselves, but they were strong enough to tip the existing balance of power. This was especially true for highly centralised and largely theocratic societies where much of legitimacy of rulers derived from their religious status. As indigenous military forces learned how to adapt to Spanish military resources and tactics, they became considerably more effective at resistance, but by this point the central administrative centres in Tenochtitlan and Cuzco had been conquered. The outskirts of the kingdoms of New Spain and Peru remained conflicted borderlands long into the 19th century.
English colonists certainly did not lack the inclination to force indigenous peoples into servitude. They alternated between warfare and negotiation with much the same opportunism that guided the Spanish conquistadors: taking hostages, searching for "el dorado," making and breaking treaties, etc. The English were every bit as dangerous as 16th century Europeans generally were, equipped with steel and firearms and bearing horrifying diseases, albeit without really understanding the last part. Given how meagre the forces of Cortes and Pizarro were, it seems hard to argue they were less well equipped, though the ongoing flow of resources from Europe is both a cause of and a reaction to success in conquest. I would say their treatment of the Pasageghs at Jamestown was not substantially different from the Spanish conquistadors, though the lack of a fast conquest made the English colonists more vulnerable and dependent on peaceful contact for food. What they lacked, at least as far as I can tell, was a large, dense, sedentary indigenous civilisation with pre-existing political fractures to exploit.
Here's a very informative response regarding their textile industry:
But I'll add my own info here that I believe is more relevant to your question. You have to remember the circumstances in which both Empires ruled and colonized. While the English did put some effort into subjugation of natives, it wasn't a primary concern by any means. There are several reasons why this is and I'll try to go over them the best I can.
First, we have a difference in Religion and motives. It's safe to assume that while Spain was mostly in it for profit, it would be inaccurate to say that religion played no role in colonization. There are mentions of converting natives very early on by the Spanish, and this allowed an extra level of under which to subgegate natives. The English, on the other hand, did not care as much about religion. Elizabeth's letters to Walter Raleigh don't mention conversion, and Jamestown did. It bring extensive missionaries with them. The few religious communities that came to America did so to escape others, no spread the word of God, meaning that they had less of a moral justification for colonization.
But I would also say that a large reason for this is due to what they were actually conquoring. Central and South America already had empires and a more centralized and controlled government, meaning the Spanish could use the systems (like the Mita in Peru).
However, no such systems existed within America. There were smaller decentralized communities that had land to defend and could find allies in defense. So as a result, the English usually didn't subgegate them. One last thing worth mentioning, the English couldn't trap fur to well, and because the natives were willing to trade fur to the Europeans, the French and English we often content to leave the tribes to their own devices resulting in the beaver wars.
http://www.virtualjamestown.org/exist/cocoon/jamestown/fha/J1013