`Click here to return to Table of Contents

Joshua Reed Giddings (1795-1864) was born at Tioga Point (now Athens), Pennsylvania. He became a politician and was elected as a Whig candidate to represent Ohio in the United States House of Representatives in 1838. A violent antislavery advocate, he was censured by the House for his defense of mutineers on the Creole and resigned in 1842, but was reelected in 1843 by a large majority and served until 1859, when he refused nomination (Ruchames IV 194; Webster 399). He was in favor of using violence to free the slaves, believing that it was the duty of the enslaved to obtain their freedom by revolting against their masters and taking the lives of any who opposed them (Mabee 64). The congressman opposed both the Mexican War and the Compromise of 1850, including the Fugitive Slave Law. In 1854 he joined the Republican party and was U.S. consul general to Canada from 1861 until his death in 1864 (Ruchames 194; Webster 399).

Using his own carriage, Giddings drove Garrisonian lecturers around his congressional district in Ohio (The Western Reserve) to introduce them to audiences. Even Garrison, who was thoroughly nonviolent and, in addition, opposed to the use of political means to overthrow slavery, said that Giddings possessed rare integrity (Mabee 261). During Abby Kelley's eighteen months in Ohio (1845-46), Giddings was one of her main supporters. Sterling describes him as "square-built, good-tempered ...self-educated, and blunt-spoken" (Sterling 228). His support enabled Abby and those with her to obtain many invitations to speak. His relationship with the Fosters was politically embarrassing, but still he cooperated with them. While he did not agree with the American Anti-Slavery Society's interpretation of the Constitution, he believed that it might eventually be necessary to dissolve the Union (228). He and John Quincy Adams were leaders in presenting to Congress petitions gathered by abolitionists (Kraditor 37-38).

In the following letter Giddings answers Milo's inquiry about a published source for a Supreme Court decision.

Letter 135

from Joshua Reed Giddings

Washington City

July 18: 42

Dear Sir

Your favor of 12th is before me. The decision of Groves and others vs. Slaughter1 to which you allude is published under the authority of the United States in the 15th vol. of Peters Reports and may be found in that book in an official form, but it has not been published by government in any other way than all other laws are published. I however hope that it may be published in some way that may place it before the people, for I deem it the most important decision that has been made of late upon the subject of slavery.

Yours sincerely

Your friend

Milo A. Townsend

J.R. Giddings

1This was the case of Moses Groves and James Graham vs. Robert Slaughter and of John W. Brown, Moses Groves, R.M. Roberts, and James Graham vs. Robert Slaughter. The source of the following information is Volume X, pages 800-825 of Stephen K. Williams' Reports of Cases Argued in the Supreme Court of the United States .

Robert Slaughter had imported a number of slaves into Mississippi in 1835 and 1836, which he had sold to John W. Brown. Brown had given Slaughter the promissory notes signed by the plaintiffs in partial payment. No payment had been made on these notes, though it was long overdue.

The case had been tried by the Circuit Court of Louisiana on one of the promissory notes for the purchase of slaves in Mississippi. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant found the decision of the lower court to be satisfactory, so the case was brought before the Supreme Court in the January 1841 session.

The problem arose from the interpretation of the effectiveness of a new constitution adopted by the state of Mississippi in 1832 whereby it was prohibited to import slaves into that state as merchandise or for sale after May 1, 1833, (although settlers were free until 1845 to bring in slaves for their own use only and not for sale). The Mississippi legislature, however, had not enacted any laws to implement the constitutional ban on importation of slaves for sale until May 13, 1837. Therefore, the lower court had held that since no legislature had been enacted by the date of the transactions in question, the constitutional prohibition had not been in effect at that time.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide solely "whether a contract opposed to a constitutional provision, not accompanied with any legislative action, will be carried into effect by the judicial tribunals" (802).

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Thompson, who stated,

When the sale of the slaves in question was made there was certainly no fixed and settled course of policy which would make void or illegal such contracts.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly affirmed, and this view of the case makes it unnecessary to inquire whether the article in the constitution of Mississippi is repugnant to the Constitution of the United, and indeed, such inquiry is not properly in the case, as the decision has been placed entirely upon the construction of the constitution of Mississippi (820).