Read Online The Lost Gettysburg Address by David T. Dixon - Free Book Online Page A

heard in
Ohio. The wealthy and respected doctor, an 1837 graduate of the
Ohio Medical College, specialized in surgery to correct deformities
of the limbs. When he was approached by the parents of
eighteen-year-old Harriet Keever, Winton offered to treat her club foot in his
own home. The unfortunate girl became pregnant and accused the
doctor of seducing her. Imagine Charles Anderson reflecting back on
his talks with Larz regarding the “low acts” that both despised in the
political realm. Was defending a man accused of raping an innocent
invalid any less onerous? Still, Anderson agreed to defend the doctor
in Preble County Court.
    There he faced a hostile jury and a public enraged by the heinous
nature of this apparent crime. Anderson used all of his considerable
skills of debate and persuasion to create reasonable doubt as to his
client’s guilt. The alleged rapes took place while the doctor’s wife
and the local minister chatted in a room next door. The victim did
not cry out or attempt to run away after five supposed molestations.
She was driven home by the doctor and arranged to see him for a
follow-up appointment months after she left his home. She only made
her accusation after the birth of her child, nine and a half months
after she left the doctor’s residence. Despite the lack of credible
evidence and the conflicting testimony of the alleged victim and her
family, Winton was convicted of “seduction,” a lesser charge than
rape. Judge Crane’s instructions to the jury were clear: they either
had to find the defendant guilty or declare that the young woman was
nothing more than a “perjured strumpet.” Anderson admitted in his
closing argument that such a verdict in the face of so little evidence
would shake his faith in the legal system. In reality, he knew better
than to expect perfect justice in an imperfect world.
    Anderson’s losses in the courtroom and on the stump did little to
tarnish his image or his growing celebrity. His entire thirty-five-page
closing argument was published the following year. His rapid rise
to prominence on a larger stage did not go unnoticed by state party
leaders. Despite being all but banished from political life just four
years earlier, a considerable effort was made to nominate Charles
Anderson for the United States Senate in 1851. His well-known
independence made him a potential compromise candidate, as Whigs and
Democrats grappled with the popularFree Soil Partymovement in a
fast-changing game of party realignment. 17
    Anderson himself appeared a little bemused at the prospect of being
used as political barter. The machinations began in November 1850,
whenJudge Holt,Anderson’s older brother Larz, and other
prominent Democrats prepared to support Charles’s candidacy, rather than
allow the Free Soil Party to triumph. “I prefer the weakest Democrat
in Ohio, representing a large and honest party,” Anderson wailed, “to
one of those traitorous fanatics or knaves, though he be Webster in
intellect or Clay in statesmanship.” A confused mess of backroom
dealings concluded at the Whig caucus in January 1851, where Anderson
was beaten, as he had predicted, “by some damned small fry” namedHiram Griswold. The vote was twenty-six to twenty. Griswold and the
Whig Party were crushed in the election at the statehouse.Benjamin
Franklin Wade emerged as victor on the Thirty-Seventh ballot. Wade
went on to serve three terms and become one of the most radical
Republicans in Washington. 18
    Charles Anderson traveled to Baltimore in June 1852 for the
quadrennial national Whig convention. The Democrats had nominated
New Hampshire nativeFranklin Pierce for president only weeks
earlier. Incumbent chief executiveMillard Fillmore coveted the Whig
nomination, but Anderson and most others felt he had little chance to
beat Pierce. They nominatedGeneral Winfield Scott after Anderson
gave a rousing speech supporting his old friend. Just days after the
convention concluded,Henry Clay died