Oh, so that's what you are groping for. I answered that in my post 323. It must have been the day you missed school with the ground itch.
To understand the approved DOI, you need to read the early drafts.
“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
Note well Jefferson’s words: “he is now exciting those VERY PEOPLE to rise in arms among us (emphasis added).”
And what “very people” is he talking about?
Indians? No.
Other British citizens? No.
Slaves? Yes.
Read it again. For the first time.
Citing a stricken propaganda section of one early draft does not explain what is meant by “domestic insurrection” in the final draft. Can you give me a reference to any slave insurrection that Jefferson might have obliquely been using a euphemism for? ....... or not? You are implying that there were active slave insurrections, against which the writers of the DOI were complaining. Where, what, who, when, why, were these Slave insurrections? You make the blatant claim, surely you can back it up?
Of course, there's no doubt that Jefferson's famous deleted paragraph referred to slaves and Lord Dunmore's call for them to join the British army.
But the question here is whether those deleted words were then summarized in the included sentence about "domestic insurrections"?
jeffersondem thinks they were, I think not, for reasons I've now restated several times.
Then you would understand it differently than people would have understood it at the time. When were those early draft first released to the public?
"Domestic" has different meanings. "Domestic affairs" doesn't refer to sex with relatives or servants, but to inland, as opposed to foreign matters. If a nineteenth century American wanted to talk about an uprising of slaves, he or she might use the phrase "servile insurrection."
Eighteenth century is a little trickier, but the phrase "domestic insurrection" first came into usage in English in 1745. Why was that? You can look up what happened in that year in Britain.
In American English, the phrase "domestic insurrection spiked in frequency in the 1770s, again in the late 1780s, again around 1800. That last might refer to the Haitian Revolution or an foiled slave uprising in Virginia, but also to the attempted revolution in Ireland.
It's less likely that others had much to do with slavery. More likely, it was the Revolution and then Shays's Rebellion. You can find the phrase "domestic insurrections" in the Federalist Papers, and it's not used in connection with slave uprising. I believe Washington also used the phrase in connection with the Whiskey Rebellion.
"Domestic insurrection" had its highest frequency in the 1860s, but the phrase "servile insurrection," introduced around 1797, was far more frequent.