[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "At one time - 48 hours ago - the writings of Thomas Jefferson “coulda’, maybe possibly sorta’ might refer to slave revolts.” Now, it's “an outrageous claim”.
What has changed other than an escalation in BJK’s desperation index?"

rockrr: "There’s a difference between an honest misunderstanding and a deceptive or deceitful one.
jeffersondem’s province lies decidedly in the latter two."

See my post #400 above.
I admit that changing opinions, be it ever so slightly, in the middle of a thread is never a good idea -- it confuses some and excites the jeffersondems to do what you're seeing.
But I plead in this case extenuating circumstances in that proper defense of Thomas Jefferson requires we don't accuse him of crimes or errors he didn't commit.
I this particular case our jeffersondem-on has accused Mr. Jefferson of declaring independence in 1776 in order to protect slavery.
jeffersondem cited the Declaration's phrase "excited domestic insurrections" as proof, since "domestic insurrections" must refer to Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775 and therefore to slave revolts, aka "domestic insurrections".

I see now my error was in granting jeffersondem-on the benefit of my doubts about Mr. Jefferson, which neither deserved.
A closer inspection of Dunmore's Proclamation and actual history shows:

1. Dunmore called on all servants, not just African slaves, to join the British army, not to "domestic insurrection" or slave rebellion.

2. There were no slave rebellions at that time.

3. But there were several "domestic insurrections" between loyalists to Britain and American patriots.

Therefore it cannot be true that "excited domestic insurrections" refers to non-existent slave rebellions, which means the Declaration of Independence only mention of slavery was in Jefferson's deleted paragraph.
There he blames the King for:

1. first imposing slavery, then
2. preventing it's abolition and now
3. referring to Dunmore's invitation to join the British army:
   "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..."
   I grant that "murdering the people" is hyperbole for joining the British army, since there's no evidence it refers to anything else.
   Regardless, Jefferson is not here defending slavery itself but rather he opposes "murdering the people."

Bottom line: the Declaration of Independence lists by my count 35 reasons, of which the only one which refers to slavery in any way was Mr. Jefferson's final deleted paragraph.
This paragraph by any reasonable reading is anti-slavery mentioning Dunmore's Proclamation only ironically and tangentially.

So, I now judge jeffersondem-on's accusation against Mr. Jefferson as yet another false, bogus and malicious attempt to justify 1861 secessionists by wrapping them in the mantle of our Founding Fathers.

jeffersondem-on is guilty of false accusation, Thomas Jefferson is innocent of jeffersondem-on's accusation.

[jeffersondem]

Part of the problem I have with your explanations is that they are not only inconsistent with history, they are inconsistent with each other.

There is this: “Further, the accurate language in Jefferson’s deleted paragraph was too carefully constructed to be reduced to the simple phrase “he has excited domestic insurrections”, even though that is what’s often alleged.”

Then there is this: “So Jefferson’s claim that “he is now exciting those very people “ may have been too much of an exaggeration for inclusion in the Declaration’s final version.”

You are describing the same paragraph as “accurate language” that is “carefully constructed” and another time as “too much of an exaggeration”. It is hard to square that circle.