>> Meaning he has attempted to trigger slave rebellions. Bet you didn’t know that was in there. Apparently stirring up their slaves was one of the just causes for which they seceded from the United Kingdom. <<
Utter nonsensical rubbish.
You edited the text. The actual charge, as you know, was “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
As the spacing makes clear, that’s a single charge. (Also, the use of “excited... amongst us” makes it clear the charges includes British actions which sided WITH and AGAINST the Indians.) The reference is to the French and Indian War. The British sided with Indians who didn’t distinguish between the French and other Indians, and loyal-to-Great-Britain colonists when they massacred colonists. They were simply promised payment for any frontiersmen they killed, in the presumption that said frontiersmen were likely to side with the French. The anger at the British over that led to the Black Boys Rebellion (which refers to their warpaint, not their race, which was white). See also the Paxton Boys Rebellion, the Knowles (Impressment) Riot, Pontiac’s war, Liberty Riot etc.
BroJoeK? Is that you? :)
You edited the text.
I copied and pasted. Go back and look for yourself.
As for the rest of your spiel, I believe JeffersonDem has thoroughly thrashed out the proof that "domestic insurrections" referred to slave rebellions which people thought might be triggered by Lord Dunmore's proclamations.