Replies

“I still don't get why you keep going on about this, though.”

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.

jeffersondem: "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."

No, you posted six links, five of which repeated your claim, but none of which substantiated, by reference to actual Founders' words, that "domestic insurrections" referred to slave revolts.
So we must conclude that is a modern opinion only, perhaps shared by many, but not substantiated by anyone at the time.

jeffersondem: "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."

We should notice that jeffersondem has never complained about mockery towards alleged "gay Lincoln" but now suddenly objects to Mrs. Jefferson Davis cartoons:

jeffersondem: "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."

Wrong, because there are no other references to loyalist insurrections in the Declaration of Independence.
"Domestic insurrections" is the only reference to what were, at the time the cause of five battles in three states, something which never happened regarding slave revolts.

jeffersondem: "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."

It was not a cause, explicit or implicit, expressed by Founders themselves.
If you doubt that, then ask yourself this: suppose Lord Dunmore never issued his proclamation inviting servants & slaves to join the British army.
Would any word in the Declaration of Independence have changed?