The DOl was referring to indians here, not slaves
I guess still water really does run shallow.
I don't believe that and for good reason.
I don't believe it because it is not true.
Read the paragraph again, for the first time.
“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.”
You claim to believe the term “domestic Insurrections” is a reference to merciless Indian Savages but the writers and approvers of the DOI actually used a different term for merciless Indian Savages which I will now reveal: "merciless Indian Savages."
The term “domestic Insurrections” was a euphemism for something else: something a majority of the 13 slaves states did not want to state bluntly.
Later the slave states, to avoid being blunt, would enshrine other euphemisms in the US constitution. Euphemisms like “three fifths of all other Persons.” And “Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper. . .” And “ No person held to Service or Labour . . .”
Tell me, what do you think these euphemisms reference?
It could also refer to actual "domestic insurrections" by American loyalists against patriots, of which there had been a good many, at the time.
But there were no slave revolts at the time, making jeffersondem's claims here bogus.