In the report which accompanied the bill, Douglas declared that it was based on the principles of the compromise measures of 1850. Those measures, he maintained, affirmed three propositions: questions relating to slavery in the Territories and in States to be formed out of them should be left to the people thereof; cases involving title to slaves and questions of personal freedom should be left to the local courts, with a right of appeal to the Supreme3 Court of the United States; the mandate4 of the Constitution concerning fugitive5 slaves applied6 to Territories as well as States. Three days later, these propositions were incorporated in the bill.
January 16, Archibald Dixon, a senator from Kentucky, offered an amendment7 expressly repealing9 the eighth section of the Missouri Compromise law. Douglas remonstrated10, but in a few days he called on Dixon, the two senators went for a drive, and in the course of it Douglas promised to accept the amendment. He was satisfied, so Dixon[Pg 84] reported his conversation, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that it was unfair to the South. "This proceeding," he said, "may end my political career, but, acting11 under the sense of duty which animates12 me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice. I will do it." January 22, with several other congressmen, he called on Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, and was by him conducted to the White House. Contrary to his usage, for it was Sunday, the President granted them an interview. At the end of it, he promised to support the repeal8. The next day, Douglas reported a substitute for the Nebraska bill. It provided for two Territories, Kansas and Nebraska, instead of one; and it declared the eighth section of the Missouri Compromise law to be inoperative because it was "superseded13 by" the principles of the compromise of 1850.
At the report and the bill in its first form the anti-slavery men in Congress took instant alarm. By the time the substitute was presented, the whole country knew that[Pg 85] something extraordinary was afoot. Without a sign of any popular demand, without preliminary agitation14 or debate, Douglas, of Illinois, had set himself to repeal the Missouri Compromise. He had undertaken to throw open to slavery a great region long consecrated15 to freedom. He had written the bill of his own motion, by himself, in his own house. The South had not asked for the concession16, the North had not in any wise consented to it. For a little while, in fact, the Southern leaders seemed to distrust the bill, for they distrusted Douglas; one or two of them, like Sam Houston, of Texas, resisted it to the last, declaring it was sure in the end to do the South more harm than good. But for the most part they came quickly into line behind Douglas, though they never generally accepted his principle of popular sovereignty. As to the North, the challenge of the Kansas-Nebraska bill met there with such a response as no Southern aggression17 had yet provoked. Through every avenue of expression—through the press and the pulpit, in petitions to Congress,[Pg 86] in angry protests of public meetings and solemn resolves of legislatures—a hostile and outraged18 public opinion broke upon Douglas and his bill. His own party could not be held in line. Scores of Democratic newspapers turned against him. Save the legislature of Illinois, no Northern assembly, representative or other, that could speak with any show of authority, dared to support him. No Southern fire-eater was ever half so reviled21. He could have traveled from Boston to Chicago, so he afterwards declared, by the light of his own burning effigies22.
But the firmest and clearest protest of all came from the sturdy little band of anti-slavery men in Congress. The day after Douglas proposed his substitute, it came up for debate, and Chase, of Ohio, speaking for the opposition23, asked for more time to examine the new provisions. Douglas granted a week, and the next day there appeared in various newspapers an address to the country entitled "An Appeal of the Independent Democrats24 in Congress." Chase was the principal author of it; he and Sumner and[Pg 87] four representatives signed it. They denounced the bill as a breach25 of faith, infringing26 the historical compact of 1820, and as part of a plot to extend the area of slavery; and they accused Douglas of hazarding the dearest interests of the American people in a presidential game.
That judgment27 of him and of the bill was probably accepted by a majority of his contemporaries. For lack of Southern support, he had missed the Democratic nomination28 in 1852. It seemed clear that whatever Northern candidate the South should prefer would be nominated in 1856. His rivals were all, in one way or another, commending themselves to the South. Pierce was hand in glove with Davis and other Southern leaders. Marcy, in the Department of State, and Buchanan, in a foreign mission, were both working for the annexation29 of Cuba, a favorite Southern measure. It was suspected that Cass, old as he was, had it in mind to move the repeal when Douglas went ahead of him.
The contemporaries of Douglas were under a necessity to judge his motives30, for they[Pg 88] had to pass upon his fitness for high office and great responsibilities, and no other motive31 than ambition was so natural and obvious an explanation of his course. But it is questionable32 if any such positive judgment as was necessary, and therefore right, in his contemporaries, is obligatory33 upon historians. What he did was in accord with a political principle which he had avowed34, and it was not in conflict with any moral principle he had ever avowed, for he did not pretend to believe that slavery was wrong. True, he had once thought the Missouri Compromise a sacred compact; but there were signs that he had abandoned that opinion. It is enough to decide that he took a wrong course, and to point out how ambition may very well have led him into it. It is too much to say he knew it was wrong, and took it solely35 because he was ambitious.
But if he had taken a wrong course he did not fail to do that which will often force us, in spite of ourselves, into admiration36 for a man in the wrong: he pursued it unwavering to the end. Neither the swelling37 uproar38[Pg 89] from without nor a resolute39 and conspicuously40 able opposition within the Senate daunted41 him for a moment. He pressed the bill to its passage with furious energy. He set upon Chase savagely42, charging him with bad faith in that he had gained time, by a false pretense43 of ignorance of the bill, to flood the country with slanderous44 attacks upon it and upon its author. The audacity45 of the announcement that the Compromise of 1850 repealed46 the Compromise of 1820 was well-nigh justified47 by the skill of his contention48. It was a principle, he maintained, and no mere49 temporary expedient50, for which Clay and Webster had striven, which both parties had indorsed, which the country had acquiesced51 in,—the principle of "popular sovereignty." That principle lay at the base of our institutions; it was illustrated52 in all the achievements of our past; it, and it alone, would enable us in safety to go on and extend our institutions into new regions. Cass, though he made difficulties about details, supported the bill, and the Southerners played their part well. But[Pg 90] Douglas afterwards said, and truly: "I passed the Kansas-Nebraska act myself. I had the authority and power of a dictator throughout the whole controversy53 in both houses. The speeches were nothing. It was the marshaling and directing of men and guarding from attacks and with ceaseless vigilance preventing surprise."
Chase was the true leader of the opposition, and he was equipped with a most thorough mastery of the slavery question in its historical and constitutional aspects. By shrewd amendments54 he sought to bring out the division between the Northern and Southern supporters of the bill; for the Southerners held that slave-owners had a constitutional right to go into any Territory with their property,—a right with which neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could interfere55. Douglas, however, managed to avoid the danger. He made another change in the important clause. To please Cass and others, he made it declare that the Compromise of 1820 was "inconsistent with" instead of "superseded by" the principles[Pg 91] of the later compromise; and then he added the words, "it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate56 slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the inhabitants thereof perfectly57 free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." That, as Benton said, was a little stump58 speech incorporated in the bill; and it proved a very effective stump speech indeed.
Neither the logic59 and the accurate knowledge of Chase, nor the lofty invective60 of Sumner, nor the smooth eloquence61 of Everett, nor Seward's rare combination of political adroitness62 with an alertness to moral forces, matched, in hand to hand debate, the keen-mindedness, the marvelous readiness, and the headlong force of Douglas. Their set speeches were impressive, but in the quick fire, the question-and-answer, the give-and-take of a free discussion, he was the master of them all. When, half an hour after midnight of the third of March, he rose before[Pg 92] a full Senate and crowded galleries to close the debate, he was at his best. Often interrupted, he welcomed every interruption with courtesy, and never once failed to put his assailant on the defensive63. Now Sumner and now Chase was denying that he had come into office by a sacrifice of principle; now Seward was defending his own State of New York against a charge of infidelity to the compact of 1820; now Everett, friend and biographer and successor of Webster, was protesting that he had not meant to misrepresent Webster's views. Always, after these encounters, Douglas knew how to come back, with a graver tone, to the larger issue, as if they, and not he, were trying to obscure it. A spectator might have fancied that these high-minded men were culprits, and he their inquisitor. Now and then, as when he dealt with the abolitionists, there was no questioning the sincerity65 of his feeling, and it stirred him to a genuine eloquence. He was not surprised that Boston burned him in effigy66. Had not Boston closed her Faneuil Hall upon the aged19 Webster? Did not[Pg 93] Sumner live there? And he turned upon the senator from Massachusetts: "Sir, you will remember that when you came into the Senate, and sought an opportunity to put forth67 your abolition64 incendiarism, you appealed to our sense of justice by the sentiment, 'Strike, but hear me first!' But when Mr. Webster went back in 1850 to speak to his constituents68 in his own self-defense69, to tell the truth and to expose his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you struck him first." Again and again, as at the end of a paragraph of unadorned but trenchant70 sentences the small, firm-knit figure quivered with a leonine energy, the great, swart head was thrown backward, and the deep voice swelled71 into a tone of triumph or defiance72, the listeners could not forbear to applaud. Once, even Seward broke forth: "I have never had so much respect for him as I have to-night."
The vote in the Senate was 27 ayes to 14 noes; but in the House the opposition was dangerously strong, and but for the precaution of securing the support of the administration[Pg 94] the bill might have failed. There was a fierce parliamentary battle. Richardson, Douglas's friend and chief lieutenant73, kept the House in continuous session thirty-six hours trying to force through a motion to fix a term for the debate. Feeling rose on both sides. Personal encounters were imminent74. Douglas, in constant attendance, watched every move of the opposition and was instant with the counter-move. It was a month before the bill could be brought to a vote, and then it passed, with a slight change, by a majority of thirteen. At the end of May, the President signed it, and Douglas, turning from the work of enacting75 it into law to the harder task of defending it before the country, beheld76 the whole field of national politics transformed. The Whig party, crushed to earth in 1852, made no move to take a stand on the new issue; it was dead. His own historical Democratic party was everywhere throughout the North in a turmoil77 that seemed to forebode dissolution. One new party, sprung swiftly and secretly into life on the old issue of enmity[Pg 95] to foreigners and Roman Catholics, seemed to stand for the idea that the best way to meet the slavery issue was to run away from it. Another new party, conceived in the spirit of the appeal of the independent Democrats, was struggling to be born. State after State was falling under the power of the Know-Nothings; and those men, Whigs and Democrats alike, who for years had been awaiting an opportunity to fight slavery outside of its breastworks of compromise, were forming at last under the name of Anti-Nebraska men. Before long, they began to call themselves Republicans.
He did not quail78. Invited to pronounce the Independence Day oration79 at Philadelphia, he made of it the first thoroughgoing denunciation of the Know-Nothings that any eminent80 public man in the country had the courage to make. Democrats everywhere, bewildered by the mystery in which these new adversaries81 shrouded82 their designs, were heartened to an aggressive warfare83. Some months later, he took the stump in Virginia, where Henry A. Wise had brought the[Pg 96] Democrats firmly into line against the only rivals they had in the South, now that the Whigs were giving up the fight. The campaign was a crucial one, and the Know-Nothings never recovered from their defeat. Douglas's course had the merit of consistency84 as well as courage, for he had always championed the rights of the foreign born.
The Independence Day oration was also his first popular defense of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. But so soon as Congress adjourned85 he hastened home to face his own people of Illinois. Chicago was once more, as in 1850, a centre of hostility86, and he announced that he would speak there the evening of September first. When the time came, flags at half mast and the dismal87 tolling88 of church bells welcomed him. A vast and ominously89 silent crowd was gathered, but not to hear him. Hisses90 and groans91 broke in upon his opening sentences. Hour after hour, from eight o'clock until midnight, he stood before them; time and again, as the uproar lessened92, his voice combated it; but they would not let him speak.[Pg 97] Nothing, in fact, but his resolute bearing saved him from violence. On the way home, his carriage was set upon and he was in danger of his life.
Wherever he went in Northern Illinois, similar scenes were enacted93. But he got a hearing, and in the central counties and in "Egypt," the southern part of the State, where the people were largely of Virginian and Kentuckian descent, he was cordially received. He kept his hold upon his party in Illinois, and Illinois, alone of all the Northwestern States, would not go over completely to the opposition. The Democratic candidate for state treasurer94 was elected. The Know-Nothings and Anti-Nebraska men got a majority of the congressmen, and by the defection of certain state senators who held over from a previous election they were enabled to send Lyman Trumbull, Anti-Nebraska Democrat20, to be Douglas's colleague at Washington. That, when compared with the results elsewhere in the North, was a striking proof of Douglas's power with his people. Moreover, the Democrats of the[Pg 98] North who remained in the party had accepted his leadership. In the South, the party organization was soon free of any effective opposition. The two wings, so long as they were united, could still control the Senate and elect presidents. All would still be well, if only all went well on those Western plains whither Douglas declared that the slavery question was now banished95 forever from the halls of Congress.
But all was not going well there. When the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, Sumner exultantly96 exclaimed: "It sets freedom and slavery face to face, and bids them grapple." Nebraska was conceded to freedom, but the day Kansas, the southern Territory, was thrown open to settlement, a long, confused, confusing struggle began. The whole country was drawn97 into it. Blue lodges98 in the South, emigrant99 aid societies in the North, hurried opposing forces into the field. The Southerners, aided by colonized100 voters from Missouri, got control of the territorial legislature and passed a slave code. The Free-Soilers, ignoring the government thus established,[Pg 99] gathered in convention at Topeka, formed a free state constitution, and demanded to be admitted into the union as a State. When a new Congress assembled in December, 1855, there were two governments in Kansas, and the people were separated into hostile camps. Brawls101 were frequent, and it was clear that very soon, unless the general government intervened, there would be concerted violence. A force of several thousand pro-slavery men, encamped on the Wakarusa River, were threatening Lawrence, the principal Free-Soil town. The Free-Soil men were in a majority, but their course had been in disregard of law. The pro-slavery men were in a minority, they had resorted to violence and fraud, but they had followed the forms of law.
President Pierce, swayed by Jefferson Davis, took the side of slavery. The House was nearly two months organizing, and then the President sent in a message to Congress denouncing the Free-Soilers for resisting the laws. He followed it up with a proclamation, and placed United States troops at the disposal[Pg 100] of the regular territorial government. In March, Douglas, from his Committee on Territories, made a long report on all that had occurred. He, too, laid the blame on the emigrant aid societies. He was against the Topeka constitution, and offered, instead, a bill providing for the admission of Kansas, so soon as her population should reach 93,000, which would entitle her to one representative in Congress, with such constitution as her people might lawfully102 adopt. The House, with an anti-slavery majority, was for admitting Kansas at once with the Topeka constitution. So was the anti-slavery group in the Senate, now swelled into a strong minority. In the fierce debate that followed, Douglas had to defend the results, as well as the theory, of his law. Sumner was the bitterest of his assailants, and their controversy passed all bounds of parliamentary restraint. In Sumner's famous speech on the crime against Kansas, Butler, of South Carolina, was represented as the Don Quixote of slavery, Douglas as its Sancho Panza, "ready to do all its humiliating offices." The day[Pg 101] after that speech, Lawrence was sacked, and civil war broke out in Kansas. The next day, Preston Brooks103, of South Carolina, assaulted Sumner and beat him down on the floor of the Senate. Ten days later, the Democratic convention met at Cincinnati to name a candidate for the presidency104.
Douglas had won a good following from the South, but Pierce was the first choice of the Southerners. They wanted a servant merely, not a leader, in the White House. But it was no longer a question of the South's preference alone: it was a question of holding the two or three Northern States that were still Democratic. Of these, Pennsylvania was the most important. Buchanan was the choice of the Northern delegates because he was a Pennsylvanian and because, abroad on a foreign mission, he had escaped all responsibility for Kansas. On the first ballot105, he led with 135 votes, Pierce was second with 122, and Douglas had but 33, but as before he rose as the balloting106 proceeded. Pierce's vote fell away; after the fourteenth ballot, his name was withdrawn107. On the[Pg 102] fifteenth, Buchanan had 168, Douglas 118. Richardson, Douglas's manager, thereupon arose and read a dispatch from his chief directing his friends to obey the will of the majority and give Buchanan the necessary two thirds. Once more, the prize escaped him, though he had bid for it with his country's peace.
But the platform proclaimed the principle of his famous law to be "the only sound and safe solution of the slavery question." He was at the head of his party as Clay had for so many years headed the Whigs. He had the substance of power, the reality of leadership, whosesoever the trappings and the title might be. Every move in Congress was made with a view to its effect in the campaign, and it was he who arranged the issues. Toombs, of Georgia, offered an enabling act of admirable fairness, intended to secure the people of Kansas in their right to have such a state constitution as they might prefer, and Douglas adopted it and held the Senate for it against the House bill to admit Kansas with the Topeka constitution.[Pg 103] No agreement could be reached, for the Republicans in their platform had declared for the prohibition108 of slavery in all the Territories. "Bleeding Kansas" was their war-cry, and Douglas charged, not without reason, that they meant to keep Kansas bleeding until the election. The House went so far as to attach a rider to the army appropriation109 bill forbidding the President to employ United States troops in aid of the territorial authorities, and would not permit the appropriations110 to pass in their ordinary form until Congress adjourned and the President was forced to call an extra session.
But the Republican party had not yet gathered into its ranks all those who in their hearts favored its policy. The reality of civil war in Kansas brought a sobering sense of danger to the union which worked contrary to the angry revolt against the slave power, and Buchanan's appeal to the lovers of the union in both sections was successful. He was elected, and the Democrats, with a majority in both houses of Congress, got[Pg 104] once more a free hand with Kansas and the slavery question.
They had, too, a majority of the Supreme Court, and now for the first time the court came forward with its view of the question. Two days after the inauguration111, the Dred Scott decision was handed down, and the territorial controversy passed into a new phase. All parties were forced to reconsider their positions. Douglas, especially, had need of all his adroitness to bring his doctrine112 of popular sovereignty into accord with the decision; for so far as it went it accorded completely with that extreme Southern view of Calhoun's and Yancey's and Jefferson Davis's which he had never yet, in his striving after an approachment with the South, ventured far enough to accept. The court decided113 that the Declaration of Independence did not mean negroes when it declared all men to be equal; that no negro could become a citizen of the United States; that the right of property in slaves was affirmed in the Constitution; and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in[Pg 105] any Territory. The announcement that the eighth clause of the Missouri Compromise law was unconstitutional was acceptable enough to the man who had accomplished114 its repeal, but what became of popular sovereignty if the Constitution itself decreed slavery into the Territories? But Douglas, whether he met the difficulty effectively or not, faced it promptly115. Speaking at Springfield in June, he indorsed the decision, not merely as authoritative116, but as right; and he claimed that it was in accord with his doctrine. For slavery, he pointed117 out, was dependent for its existence anywhere upon positive legislation. This the inhabitants of a Territory, acting through their territorial legislature, could grant or deny as they chose. The constitutional right of a slaveholder to take his property into a Territory would avail him nothing if he found there no laws and police regulations to protect it.
The decision was, however, universally and rightly considered a great victory for slavery. It condemned118 the Republican programme as unconstitutional, and it strengthened[Pg 106] the contention of the Southerners. But the Southern leaders were in little need of heartening: no cause ever had bolder and firmer champions. Under cover of the panic of 1857, which drew men's minds away from politics, a group of them were already planning a most daring last attempt to bring Kansas into the union as a slave State. In the grappling there, freedom had shown itself stronger than slavery. Robert J. Walker, a slaveholder, whom Buchanan and Douglas had persuaded to accept the governorship, reported that the Free-Soilers outnumbered their adversaries three to one. The legislature had provided for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention, and when the question of submitting the constitution to the people arose, the governor, an upright man, promptly announced that it would be submitted, and the administration sustained him. Many Free-Soilers, however, made the mistake of staying away from the polls on election day. The convention, under control of the pro-slavery leaders, met in October at Lecompton, drew up a[Pg 107] constitution which safeguarded slavery elaborately, and hit upon an extraordinary way to submit it to the people. The electors were permitted to vote either "for the constitution with slavery," or "for the constitution without slavery," but not against the constitution as a whole. Even if "the constitution without slavery" carried, such slaves as were already held in Kansas could continue to be held.
So far had the Democratic party progressed toward the extreme Southern view, and such was the ascendency of the Southerners over Buchanan, that he would not stand up against the outrageous119 scheme, and it seemed on the point of succeeding. But Douglas was come now to a parting of the ways. Forced to choose between absolute subserviency120 to the South and what was left of his principle of popular sovereignty, he remonstrated angrily with the President for breaking faith with Walker and the Kansans. At the end of a stormy interview, Buchanan, stirred out of his wonted placidity121, threateningly reminded the senator that[Pg 108] no Democrat ever broke with a Democratic administration without being crushed. Douglas scornfully retorted: "Mr. President, I wish you to remember that General Jackson is dead." The new Congress was no sooner assembled than the Lecompton programme became the central issue, and Douglas, in flat rebellion against his party's Southern masters, in open defiance of his party's President, was again the man of the hour.
Superb fighter that he was, he had a fighter's best opportunity,—great odds122 to fight against, and at last a good cause to fight for. The administration proscribed123 him. The whole South, so lately reciting his praises, rose up against him and reviled him as a traitor124. Of his party associates in the Senate, but two or three were brave enough to follow him. Moreover, the panic had swept away his wealth. He was near the end of his term of office, and the trend in Illinois was toward the Republicans. The long tide which had so steadily125 borne him on to fortune seemed to ebb126. Married again but recently, and to the most beautiful woman[Pg 109] in Washington, he must have had in mind, as he took up his new r?le, some such thought as that which fortified127 his favorite hero at Marengo: one battle was lost, but there was time enough to win another.
The Lecompton plotters had reckoned on the opposition of the Republicans. It was Douglas and his handful of followers128 who confounded them. At once, they accused him of deserting them to make sure of his re?lection to the Senate. But as the debate progressed, and his name kept appearing on the same side with Sumner's and Seward's in the divisions, another notion spread. Horace Greeley and other Republicans began to suggest that he might be the man to lead the new party to victory on a more moderate platform. Throughout the North, people who had abhorred129 him came first to wonder at him and then to praise him.
But he fought the Lecompton conspiracy130 from his old base. It was contrary to the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act; there had been gross frauds at the election of [Pg 110]delegates; the form of submission131 was a mockery of the electors. He would say nothing for slavery or against it. He cared not "whether slavery was voted up or voted down." Give the people a fair and free chance to form and adopt a constitution, and he would accept it. Let them have a fair vote on the Lecompton constitution, and if they ratified132 it he would accept that. Ratified it was at the absurd election the convention had ordered, for the great majority of the settlers could not vote their opposition, but when the legislature, now Free-Soil, took the authority to submit it as a whole, the majority against it by far exceeded the highest total of votes the pro-slavery men had ever mustered133. Nevertheless, the Senate passed it, Douglas and three other Democrats voting in the negative. His following in the House was greater, and the bill was there amended134 so as to provide for submitting the constitution to the people. There was a conference, and in its final form the bill offered the people of Kansas a bribe135 of lands if they would accept the constitution,[Pg 111] and threatened them with an indefinite delay of statehood if they should reject it. Douglas, however, after some hesitation136, refused to vote for the bill as amended, and when the time came the Kansans, by more than five to one, rejected the constitution and the bribe.
So the session brought no settlement, and Kansas was still the burning issue when Douglas went back to Illinois and took the stump in the senatorial campaign. Victor in a stirring parliamentary contest, this time Chicago welcomed him. But there awaited him treason in the ranks of his own party,—for the administration, beaten in Congress, attacked him at home,—and an opposition now completely formed and led by a man whom Douglas himself, in his own heart, dreaded137 as he had never dreaded the ablest of his rivals at Washington. The Republicans had taken the unusual course of holding a convention to nominate their candidate for the Senate, and the candidate was Abraham Lincoln.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
latitude
|
|
| n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
mandate
|
|
| n.托管地；命令，指示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
fugitive
|
|
| adj.逃亡的，易逝的；n.逃犯，逃亡者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
repealing
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
remonstrated
|
|
| v.抗议( remonstrate的过去式和过去分词 )；告诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
animates
|
|
| v.使有生气( animate的第三人称单数 )；驱动；使栩栩如生地动作；赋予…以生命 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
consecrated
|
|
| adj.神圣的，被视为神圣的v.把…奉为神圣，给…祝圣( consecrate的过去式和过去分词 )；奉献 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
outraged
|
|
| a.震惊的，义愤填膺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
aged
|
|
| adj.年老的，陈年的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
democrat
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士；民主党党员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
reviled
|
|
| v.辱骂，痛斥( revile的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
effigies
|
|
| n.（人的）雕像，模拟像，肖像( effigy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
infringing
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的现在分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
annexation
|
|
| n.吞并，合并 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
obligatory
|
|
| adj.强制性的，义务的，必须的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
swelling
|
|
| n.肿胀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
uproar
|
|
| n.骚动，喧嚣，鼎沸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
conspicuously
|
|
| ad.明显地，惹人注目地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
daunted
|
|
| 使（某人）气馁，威吓( daunt的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
savagely
|
|
| adv. 野蛮地，残酷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
pretense
|
|
| n.矫饰，做作，借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
slanderous
|
|
| adj.诽谤的，中伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
audacity
|
|
| n.大胆，卤莽，无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
repealed
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
acquiesced
|
|
| v.默认，默许( acquiesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
illustrated
|
|
| adj. 有插图的，列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
amendments
|
|
| （法律、文件的）改动( amendment的名词复数 )； 修正案； 修改； （美国宪法的）修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
legislate
|
|
| vt.制定法律；n.法规，律例；立法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
stump
|
|
| n.残株，烟蒂，讲演台；v.砍断，蹒跚而走 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
invective
|
|
| n.痛骂，恶意抨击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
adroitness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
effigy
|
|
| n.肖像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
constituents
|
|
| n.选民( constituent的名词复数 )；成分；构成部分；要素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
trenchant
|
|
| adj.尖刻的，清晰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
swelled
|
|
| 增强( swell的过去式和过去分词 )； 肿胀； （使）凸出； 充满（激情） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
defiance
|
|
| n.挑战，挑衅，蔑视，违抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
lieutenant
|
|
| n.陆军中尉，海军上尉；代理官员，副职官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
enacting
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
beheld
|
|
| v.看，注视( behold的过去式和过去分词 )；瞧；看呀；（叙述中用于引出某人意外的出现）哎哟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
turmoil
|
|
| n.骚乱，混乱，动乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
quail
|
|
| n.鹌鹑；vi.畏惧，颤抖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
oration
|
|
| n.演说，致辞，叙述法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
shrouded
|
|
| v.隐瞒( shroud的过去式和过去分词 )；保密 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
adjourned
|
|
| （使）休会， （使）休庭( adjourn的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
dismal
|
|
| adj.阴沉的，凄凉的，令人忧郁的，差劲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
tolling
|
|
| [财]来料加工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
ominously
|
|
| adv.恶兆地，不吉利地；预示地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
hisses
|
|
| 嘶嘶声( hiss的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
groans
|
|
| n.呻吟，叹息( groan的名词复数 )；呻吟般的声音v.呻吟( groan的第三人称单数 )；发牢骚；抱怨；受苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
lessened
|
|
| 减少的，减弱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
treasurer
|
|
| n.司库，财务主管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
exultantly
|
|
| adv.狂欢地，欢欣鼓舞地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
lodges
|
|
| v.存放( lodge的第三人称单数 )；暂住；埋入；（权利、权威等）归属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
emigrant
|
|
| adj.移居的，移民的；n.移居外国的人，移民 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
colonized
|
|
| 开拓殖民地，移民于殖民地( colonize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
brawls
|
|
| 吵架，打架( brawl的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
lawfully
|
|
| adv.守法地，合法地；合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
brooks
|
|
| n.小溪( brook的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
presidency
|
|
| n.总统(校长，总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
ballot
|
|
| n.（不记名）投票，投票总数，投票权；vi.投票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
balloting
|
|
| v.（使）投票表决( ballot的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
appropriations
|
|
| n.挪用（appropriation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
inauguration
|
|
| n.开幕、就职典礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
authoritative
|
|
| adj.有权威的，可相信的；命令式的；官方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
subserviency
|
|
| n.有用，裨益 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
121
placidity
|
|
| n.平静，安静，温和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
odds
|
|
| n.让步，机率，可能性，比率；胜败优劣之别 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
proscribed
|
|
| v.正式宣布（某事物）有危险或被禁止( proscribe的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
traitor
|
|
| n.叛徒，卖国贼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
ebb
|
|
| vi.衰退，减退；n.处于低潮，处于衰退状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
fortified
|
|
| adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
abhorred
|
|
| v.憎恶( abhor的过去式和过去分词 )；（厌恶地）回避；拒绝；淘汰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
ratified
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
mustered
|
|
| v.集合，召集，集结（尤指部队）( muster的过去式和过去分词 )；（自他人处）搜集某事物；聚集；激发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
Amended
|
|
| adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
bribe
|
|
| n.贿赂；v.向…行贿，买通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |