"...Intuitively, we understand that if we can get the same results with either violence or non-violence, then the method of non-violence is infinitely more moral..." -- There's a step in the logic that's missing here. From an intuitive position, a non-violent strategy is certainly preferable (lower risk, less effort), but you have to provide at least one extra step to get from there to morally better, and this essay doesn't do that.

You're quite right that peaceful solutions to problems require more creativity and more patience (and often more intelligence), but that seems to me, to be an argument in favor of force, particularly for those who lack those things -- and the problem here, is that sometimes force works for these people, at least, in the short term, which is all they're generally concerned about. So, you've burdened yourself with also having to convince those who are short-term oriented that they ought not be, but again, this essay doesn't do that.

Your "default position" argument is interesting, but as formulated here, it only works if you already accept the view that would make peaceful solutions your default position in the first place. In other words, at a minimum you're begging the question, and at worst you're just preaching to the choir.