I clicked on several of the sites you cited and got this about Lord Dunmore: "He issued his proclamation, and authoritatively summoned to his standard all capable of bearing arms ..." I suspect that thing about calling on people to take up arms for king and country or else be labeled traitors may have constituted "exciting domestic insurrections."
Sure, his lordship did also "hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY'S Troops as soon as may be, foe the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity," and told subjects not to pay taxes to the rebel government. Nowadays we focus on that part about slaves, but that may or may not have been on everybody's mind at the time.
I still don't get why you keep going on about this, though.
“I suspect that thing about calling on people to take up arms for king and country or else be labeled traitors may have constituted “exciting domestic insurrections.”
Jefferson called it something else.
Jefferson wrote in the draft DOI: “He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of property.” This was the reference to loyalists insurrections.
This and several other passages were dropped in the approved DOI for reasons Jefferson explained in his writings.
It's because, like all pro-Confederates, jeffersondem asserts that Jefferson Davis was just George Washington reincarnated in drag.
Both were slaveholders who fought wars for the freedom to protect slavery.
So whenever it's pointed out that our Founders did not revolt to protect slavery, jeffersondem trots out the Thomas Jefferson quotes and says, in effect: "see here, it WAS all about slavery."
jeffersondem's problem, of course, is that the Declaration of Independence never mentions slavery, indeed such mentions were expressly deleted from it.
So our pro-Confederates are reduced to claiming that "domestic insurrections" are **really** CODE for "slave revolts".
If they are, then the Revolutionary War was also a war over slavery and therefore Jefferson Davis was another George Washington, albeit in drag.
Where things stand now is jeffersondem claims only "treasonous insurrections" can refer to loyalists fighting patriots, while "domestic insurrections" MUST refer to slave revolts.
The truth is "domestic insurrections" **might** occasionally refer to slave revolts, but normally did not, and since there were no slave revolts at the time, that would not be the D.O.I.'s intended meaning.
But it's an important point for pro-Confederates, so they won't give up on it.
After all, without slave revolts in the Declaration of Independence, then Jefferson Davis was just another gender-confused guy in a dress, not the second coming of George Washington.
IIR, my statement in post 72 rubbed some fur the wrong way: “It is worth remembering that one of the causes for independence that the slave states cited in the Declaration of Independence was that Britain was interfering with slavery in the colonies. Let's not pull any punches. The slave states were: New York. New Jersey. New Hampshire. Connecticut. Pennsylvania. Massachusetts. Rhode Island. Delaware. Maryland. Also Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.”
The full listing of the slave states in my post set off a couple of bitter posts like #434 which contains a Gloria Allred-level allegation against President Davis.
To your question: Thomas Jefferson recommended to Congress the DOI include grievances that the King had imposed the slave trade and that “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 upon whom he also obtruded them; . . .”
Historians generally agree that the reference to the slave trade was stricken and that the sentence referencing “those very people”, “rise in arms”, and “murdering” was changed to the euphemism “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .” I have cited numerous sources to support this position.
To be fair, some here say domestic insurrections is a euphemism referring to Indians but that does not make sense because the grievance with Indians was referenced elsewhere (”merciless Indian Savages”).
Others contend domestic insurrections is a euphemism for loyalists insurrections but that does not make sense because the grievance with loyalists insurrections were considered elsewhere in the DOI.
There may also be an argument that the 13 slave states did not object to the King exciting slaves to take up arms to murder their masters.
The last argument does not make sense at any level.