There is a right and proper method of doing that. That is what should have been done but wasn't.
To attack everyone who hopes to change the laws is to defend the abuses that they are challenging.
I would suppose that is true, but I thought you were talking about me. I can't recall ever attacking everyone who hopes to change the law except for the Judge in Massachusetts that abolished slavery by creatively "interpreting" the law to mean something it was never intended to mean when it was created.
I consider legal trickery bad whenever it is used, even if it accomplishes a worthy goal.
We should not countenance lies in our legal system.
You have objected to a state’s right to keep slavery out, and you have objected to federal attempts to keep slavery out of the territories, even though state and federal bans on slavery were both in effect when the Constitution was ratified and even though both were universally accepted as legitimate at that time. You have also objected to every effort to advantage free labor over slave labor and to remove the advantages of using slave labor, so clearly you aren’t being entirely truthful.