Update 01-04-republicanism-apologia.md

01-principles/01-04-republicanism-apologia.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ The laws of Democracies and some other forms of government change quickly and im
 
 In response to the chorus of historical examples (mainly from the USA's constitutional history) purporting to show that the intentionally inflexible nature of Republics ends up denying justified changes, (such as changes to extend individual sovereignty to groups to whom it was denied), we would like to set up arguments in response to the most pertinent attacks:
 
-> [Note: This section requires expertise beyond my own and should be written by someone more knowledgeable, who can express these arguments succinctly, yet back them up with hard-punching references to facts.]
+> [Note: This section requires expertise beyond my own and should be written by someone more knowledgeable, who can express these three sets of arguments succinctly, yet back them up with hard-punching references to facts.]
 
 - **Slavery**
 : Main points: (1) Slavery was an area where property rights needed to be extended to afro-americans, and then subsequently, diligently enforced. The solution to slavery was to extend and enforce property rights -- not to abolish private property altogether. (2) Wellspring will not make this mistake -- WS extends property rights to **all** residents from day one. (3) When the polity truly desires changes, they will demand them of their politicians even using force if necessary -- and this is what happened in the Civil War, the outcome of which was the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. If you argue that "Well, they had to use guns and fight a war just to get those changes", we reply by pointing out that the ability to take up arms against the government and the politicians and to demand change was built into the constitituion intentionally for precisely this purpose. (4) The civil war is a story which depicts not the depravity and resistance of Americans to abolition, but the general tendency toward respect for the sovereignty of the individual: it's not often pointed out, but the north had, by some sources, 10 times the economic and productive power, and a much larger army, than the south. The majority of the force of the civil war was on the side of abolition and the south was vastly outnumbered, outgunned and under-resourced. This points to the idea that the majority of Americans were at least sufficiently pro-abolition, that when forced to make the choice, they preferred abolition over the continuance of slavery.