Our third President and the Evening Post stepped upon the stage almost simultaneously8. “Hamilton’s gazette,” said travelers from the South, was to be seen at Monticello; while the Evening Post followed Jefferson with steady hostility9 as he came forward to play his part, in the words of a description in its meager10 news columns:
Dressed in long boots, with tops turned down about the ankles, like a Virginian buck11; overalls12 of corduroy, faded by frequent36 immersions in soapsuds from a yellow to a dull white; a red, single-breasted waistcoat; a light brown coat with brass13 buttons, both coat and waistcoat quite threadbare; linen15 very considerably16 soiled; hair uncombed and beard unshaven.
Coleman’s most unjustifiable display of party animosity occurred when his promise of fairness in the Evening Post’s prospectus17 was still fresh in men’s minds. In the summer of 1802 he reprinted from the Richmond Recorder the treacherous18 Callender’s attack upon the personal morals of the President, arousing a storm of protest. Much of this storm fell upon the head of Hamilton, and on Sept. 29 Coleman published a statement that Hamilton had not seen the attack before it appeared. Indeed, wrote Coleman, Hamilton had been consulted upon only one of the twelve Jefferson-Callender articles, that one involving constitutional questions. When the statesman saw the accusations19, he had expressed regret, for “he declared his sentiments to be averse20 to all personalities21, not immediately connected with public considerations.” But the editor did not take his lesson to heart. From time to time he indulged in outbursts against Jefferson of a character which we can comprehend only when we recall how outrageously24 even Washington had been vilified26 by the opposition27 press. Coleman was not content with harping28 upon Jefferson’s actual humiliations and errors, as his flight before Tarleton in 1781 and his opposition to the Constitution in 1788. He accused him of trying to cheat a friend out of a debt, and repeated the tale of a black harem. In 1805 he wrote: “There is a point of profligacy30 in the line of human impudence31, at which the most disguised heart seems to lose all sensibility to shame; and we congratulate the American public that our chief magistrate32 has so completely arrived at this enviable point.”
However, in most editorials upon national affairs the Evening Post displayed a breadth and coolness reflecting the sagacity of the Federalist leaders who helped shape its policy. From the outset it pressed the Federalist contention33 that everything should be done to develop a merchant37 marine34 and a strong navy; the aggressions of the Barbary pirates being frequently cited to prove the necessity for the latter. The Gallophile craze of Democratic circles was attacked week in and week out. When the claims of the sufferers by French spoliations were surrendered by the Administration, the indignation of the journal was outspoken36. The destruction of most of the internal revenue system which Hamilton had laboriously39 built up was a cause of much beating of the breast. Not merely did it weaken the Federal Government, said the Evening Post; the nabob Virginia planter was given his carriage untaxed, and the Western backwoodsman his whisky, while the poor Eastern artisan still had to pay taxes upon his sugar, coffee, and salt. The pretensions41 of Gallatin to rival Hamilton as a master of finance were ridiculed43. The repeal of the judiciary act passed under Adams was opposed as both unconstitutional and inexpedient.
But the primary achievement of Jefferson’s administration, the Louisiana purchase, was treated in a tone so unlike that of other Federalist journals that it is clear Hamilton guided Coleman’s pen. That noisy, artificial denunciation which went up from most Federalists was thoroughly44 discreditable. The Evening Post admitted that “it is an important acquisition”; that it was “essential to the peace and prosperity of our western country”; that it opened up “a free and valuable market to our commercial states”; and that “it will doubtless give éclat to Jefferson’s Administration.” Of course it did its best to spit into the Democratic soup. It asserted that Jefferson merited little credit for the purchase, since the fruit was knocked into his lap by the great losses of the French in the Dominican insurrection, and by the constant threat of the British to seize Louisiana. This was true, for Jefferson had set out only to buy an island for a dockyard, and had been momentarily bewildered when Napoleon offered the whole western domain46. No one at that time understood the real value of the purchase, for Louisiana was an untraversed land, believed to be largely38 desert. Hence it is not surprising to find the Evening Post asserting that the region was worth nothing for immediate22 settlement, especially since not one sixteenth the original area of the republic was yet occupied; and that its chief use might well be as something to barter47 for the Floridas, “obviously of far greater value to us than all the immense, undefined region west of the river.”
The Evening Post could not miss the opportunity to ridicule42 Jefferson’s characteristic exuberance48. The President, in his enthusiastic message to Congress, told of a tribe of giant Indians, of river bluffs49 carved into antique towers, of prairie lands too rich to produce trees, and, one thousand miles up the Missouri, of a vast saline mountain, “said to be 180 miles long and 45 in width, composed of solid rock salt.” Coleman descended50 upon this last assertion:
Lest, however, the imagination of his friends in Congress might take a flight to the mountain and find salt trees there, and salt birds and beasts too, he with the most amiable51 and infantine simplicity52, adds that there are no trees or even shrubs53 upon it. La, who would have thought it? Methinks such a great, huge mountain of solid, shining salt must make a dreadful glare in a clear sunshiny day, especially just after a rain. The President tells them too that “the salt works are pretty numerous,” and that salt is as low as $1.50 a bushel, which is about twice as high as it can be bought in New York, where we have no salt mountain at all.... We think it would have been no more than fair in the traveler who informed Mr. Jefferson of this territory of solid salt, to have added that some leagues to the westward54 of it there was an immense lake of molasses, and that between this lake and the mountain of salt, there was an extensive vale of hasty pudding, stretching as far as the eye could reach, and kept in a state of comfortable eatability by the sun’s rays, into which the natives, being all Patagonians, waded55 knee deep, whenever they were hungry, and helped themselves to salt with one hand to season their pudding, and molasses with the other to give it a relish56.... Nothing seems wanting this affair in genuine style but for the House to “decree it with applause.”
During Jefferson’s second administration the Evening Post concentrated its fire upon his foreign policy. By39 the beginning of 1807, when Coleman published a long series of articles reviewing the international situation, the great struggle raging in Europe was plainly threatening to involve America. He accused the government of studied unfriendliness toward Great Britain. He held that Jefferson had made any agreement with England impossible, first, by dispatching the mediocre57 Monroe as Minister to London, and second, by causing the passage in the spring of 1806 of a non-importation measure aimed directly at the British. Why had the Administration been so tame toward the Spaniards, who had actually invaded American soil in the West, and tried to bribe58 the leading Kentuckians to be traitors59? “Instead of framing a spirited remonstrance60 to Spain, demanding satisfaction for the repeated injuries she has done us, Jefferson has been able to go quietly into his study and amuse himself with pleasing reveries about the prairie dogs and horned frogs of the Missouri.” Above all, why had the government been so compliant62 toward Napoleon?
Napoleon, by the Berlin Decree of November, 1806, had declared that no ship which touched at an English port should be admitted to a port of France or her allies; the British, by an Order in Council of January, 1807, had tried to close all French ports to neutrals. Coleman regarded both acts as outrageous25, but centered his attack upon the Berlin decree. Napoleon, as he said, was the primary aggressor, and the British step could be palliated as one of mere40 retaliation63. “Our administration ... were bound in duty to their constituents64 to have immediately sent a spirited remonstrance to Paris against the Berlin Decree, as being not only a violation65 of the known and established law of nations, but a direct and flagrant breach66 of the existing treaty between the two countries. And if such remonstrance failed in obtaining from the French Government an explicit67 exception of the United States from the operation of the Decree, the course that was formerly68 adopted by the Federalist administration, in 1798, should have been again adopted—ships of war should have been immediately equipped, and our merchantmen40 permitted to arm for the protection of our trade.” This position Coleman maintained throughout 1807. When the Administration tried to make the Order in Council more odious69 by declaring that the French had not put the Berlin Decree into effect before the British acted, the editor flatly contradicted it. He supported his contradiction by evidence from John B. Murray, a Federalist merchant who did an immense shipping70 business from the foot of Beekman Street, and others who had suffered from the French seizures71.
But worse foreign encroachments were to come. Late in 1807 news arrived that a fresh British Order in Council had been issued, requiring all neutral vessels73 trading at ports closed to the British to stop at an English port and pay a duty, and to repeat this stop on the return voyage; while from Paris came word that Napoleon had told our Minister “there should no longer be any such thing as a neutral nation.” Napoleon answered the new British Order by his Milan Decree, declaring that any ship which paid a tax in a British port might at any time thereafter be seized in French waters. It was difficult for an American to say a word for either combatant. Coleman admitted that the British action “carries something on the face of it humiliating to our national pride.” But he continued so far as possible to defend the English, and attacked the French with increasing zeal74.
This policy did not cause him to condone75 the attack of the Leopard76 upon the Chesapeake, which stirred even Federalist New York as nothing since the surrender of Cornwallis. It will be recalled that the British Minister requested the surrender of three men who had deserted77 from an English warship78 into the Chesapeake; that Jefferson refused; and that the Leopard followed the Chesapeake from Hampton Roads out to sea, poured a heavy fire into her, compelled her to strike colors, and took the three men by force. The Evening Post flared79 up in common with all other patriotic81 organs. It condemned82 the attack as an indefensible outrage23. It demanded prompt and drastic action, and the editor’s one fear was that41 Jefferson would not resent the injury with proper vigor83. It would be a mistake, wrote Coleman, simply to call upon the British Government for disavowal of the dastardly assault, and for trial of the offenders84. The British would grant the disavowal, summon a court martial85, and acquit86 the guilty naval87 officers. No, Congress must be convened88, intercourse89 suspended, an embargo90 laid, and then, if England wished to negotiate, she could humbly91 send her envoys92 to us. In the meantime, the coast should be fortified94, and steps should be taken to give the nation frigates95 instead of Jefferson’s useless gunboats. For weeks Coleman harped97 upon this string:
We entertain respect for Great Britain; it is the land that gave birth to our ancestors, and we feel an attachment98 to the soil that covers their bones; we venerate99 her institutions; we look with anxiety upon the struggle in which she is now engaged for self-preservation; we hope she will maintain her independence uninjured, and that it will yet be long, very long, before the sun of her glory will begin his descent to the west with diminished luster100; but we can never behold101 with a criminal indifference102 the ill-judged, the unwarrantable attempts of an unwise ministry103 to trench104 upon the perfect rights of other nations; especially of one which both interest and inclination105 strongly unite to render friendly to her.... We shall always stand ready to raise our feeble voice and call upon the patriotism106 of our countrymen to rouse and resist them.
Four years later occurred the encounter between the President and Little Belt. The former vessel72 had been sent out from Annapolis to demand from the Guerriere the surrender of a seaman107 whom the British were said to have impressed. It encountered instead a ship which showed no colors, and which it overtook just at nightfall. The unknown craft refused to answer the American hail; shots were exchanged—both captains later claimed to have been fired upon first; and at daybreak the President found that it had cut to pieces a little British corvette of half its strength. Again the general excitement was intense. The Evening Post admitted that people were too inflamed108 to listen to a cool discussion of laws42 and propriety109. But in this instance it inclined to the British view. Not only did Coleman maintain that the President had been sent out with indefensible orders, being instructed to reclaim110 the impressed sailor by force if necessary; he held that the Little Belt had been justified111 in requiring the American ship to reveal its identity first, inasmuch as the Little Belt was exposed to a surprise attack by a French cruiser.
As the leading spokesman for the commercial community in New York, the Evening Post of course bitterly opposed the embargo. This stoppage of all foreign trade stunned112 the city. The day after the news came, Coleman referred to the universal “uncertainty, apprehension113, dismay, and distress114,” in which “every one is running eagerly to his neighbor to inquire after information.” He declared that it would bankrupt the merchants, and reduce thousands of laboring115 men to starvation. What! no more ships to leave any Manhattan slips, no more barges116 of grain to drop down the Hudson for foreign marts, no more droves of hogs117 and herds118 of cattle to be driven through Westchester for slaughtering119 and consignment120 abroad? The editor hastened to write a stinging article, and then, after consulting leading Federalists, put it aside in favor of an unsigned series by Rufus King.
It was pointed121 out that the embargo meant a direct loss of fifty millions a year, a sum that would build a navy amply sufficient to protect American rights at sea from France and Great Britain. The Evening Post painted a highly colored picture of the ruin of the city’s shippers and wholesalers, the distress of shipwrights122, shopkeepers, clerks, and cartmen, and the despair of Hudson Valley farmers. It ridiculed the notion that the embargo was a valuable implement123 for negotiation124 with England. The British markets were well supplied, and Britons were secretly rejoicing that the new American policy gave them a monopoly of the world’s commerce. “Why is the United States like a pig swimming?” asked Coleman. “Because it cuts its own throat.” The embargo certainly had no such effect abroad as its sponsors hoped. From43 France it brought only the Bayonne decree, by which more than two hundred American ships were seized in French-controlled waters—an outrage of which the Evening Post made much; in England the shipping and farming interests were greatly benefited. As Rufus King predicted, it not only threw whole business communities into bankruptcy125, but emptied the national treasury126 and depleted127 the strength of the nation. When the spring election came on, the Post announced a motto for Federalists which might have been made into the first American party platform: “No Embargo—No Foreign Influences—No Mystery—Freedom of Debate—Freedom of Suffrage—Freedom of Navigation and Trade—Liberty and Independence.”
Right as the Evening Post and other Federalist sheets were upon the main issue, they were not always quite fair. They consistently held that Jefferson was keeping the object of the embargo secret,
But though this in its operation
Or bankrupt his rich merchant-neighbor,
It must be endured without one moan,
Its causes and object both unknown!
while they never tired of capitalizing Thomas Paine’s indiscreet statement in the Public Advertiser that the embargo was really preparatory to war with England. Yet it was plain to the blindest that the measure was a desperate, almost despairing, effort to avoid war. Again, the Evening Post accused the South and Southwest of sheer heartlessness. Jefferson cared not who starved at the North; he had saved a fortune from his salary, and could feed his negroes herring as well as hominy. “Who is Macon?” demanded Coleman when that leader supported legislation for preventing violations130 of the embargo. “A man who lives on the frontier of North Carolina; who can send out his negroes to provide for him his venison and his wild turkey; who raises his own hominy and grows his own cotton by the sweat of his hundred44 slaves, and who I suppose feels just about as much sympathy for the millions of people in the Eastern States, at whom he levels his death-doing blow, as the Bashaw of Tripoli.” Yet the South suffered in the long run more than the North, where manufactures speedily began to arise, and Jefferson saw his property in Virginia alarmingly impaired131.
Until the last the Evening Post struggled against war with England, but it saw clearly that it was coming. As early as 1807 its Washington correspondent, probably one of the Federalist Congressmen from New York, stated that a Cabinet officer had told him that the country would have to choose between war with England or with France, and that England would probably be selected. In 1810 the editor himself wrote that America could not remain at peace with both belligerents133, “and it is very clear how the country will decide.” The journal opposed the Macon bill in 1810, permitting importation and exportation only in American bottoms, as involving certain retaliation from Great Britain. It kept its two or three short news columns garnished134 with paragraphs upon the many American seamen135 languishing136 in French prisons since the Bayonne Decree. Thus in 1808, giving a long account of the mistreatment of two skippers from the city, Captains Palmer and Waterman, the editor exclaimed: “My blood boils in my veins137.” The next year he reproduced a pitiful letter from a tar29 confined at Arras, compelled to subsist138 on a franc a day, and burst out: “Would you rest so silent and tame under a thousandth part as much from Great Britain? You know you would not.” He wanted an instant rupture139 of relations with France. The military tyranny which Napoleon spread over unwilling140 nations of Europe was attacked in fitting terms, and we find the French cruelties in the Peninsular campaign dwelt upon at length. When in 1808 Napoleon strengthened his alliance with the Russian Emperor, Coleman demanded: “Shall we join the confederacy against England, the only free and independent nation left in Europe?”
45 There was a fitful gleam of sunshine in 1809, when the British Minister, Erskine, announced that the Orders in Council would be withdrawn141; but the clouds closed in again when it appeared that he had exceeded his instructions. Coleman, examining these instructions at length, blamed Erskine harshly for this disappointment to American hopes, but not the British Government. Like other Federalist organs, the Evening Post regarded the dismissal of the next British envoy93, Jackson, as “frivolous and unfounded,” saying that “no public Minister was ever so shamefully143 dealt with.” Helped by King and others, Coleman bestowed144 great labor upon a series of articles dealing145 with the Jackson episode, which he flattered himself would have more than ephemeral value. The Secretary of State, Robert Smith, gave particular notice to this series. Coleman rejoiced over the manner in which other Federalist sheets caught up and echoed his points. The Boston Repertory, he said, is “always ready, independent, correct, and able”; Dwight’s Mirror in Connecticut “shines preéminent”; in New Jersey146 the Trenton Federalist was a firm ally; in Philadelphia the United States Gazette, long alone, was now supported by the Freeman’s Journal and the True American, while the Baltimore Federal Republican and the Virginia Patriot80 had been active. All these journals recognized in the Evening Post the voice of King, Gouverneur Morris, and Col. Varick.
It became evident late in 1811 that the paper’s long fight was lost. In reply to a war article by Duane, Coleman in a paragraph of deep pessimism147 admitted as much:
We have not, we never had, but one opinion respecting our public affairs with Great Britain; no differences will ever be brought to a termination; no negotiations148 for that purpose will ever be seriously entered upon, while Madison, or any other man in Virginia, is President. All who entertain different views or different hopes, will find themselves wofully mistaken. And if war must come, why not the sooner the better? I am free to confess, that I think a breeze from any quarter is better than that stagnant149 and sickly atmosphere which we have breathed so long, and which must, sooner or later, bring with it pestilence150 and46 death. It is the violent storm, the tremendous hurricane, with hailstone, thunder, and lightning, which cools and purifies the air, reanimates the face of nature, and restores life to pristine151 vigor and health.
There was in this statement almost the force of prophecy. The war actually had just the benefits it foreshadowed. It cleared a sultry, oppressive atmosphere, brought new and vital forces in national life into play, and gave Americans a unity and self-confidence they had not felt before. But this note was of course not struck again. As the country moved steadily152 toward war in the spring of 1812, it was with the Evening Post denouncing Clay, the chief of the “war hawks,” as a liar153 and demagogue; accusing the government of deliberate misrepresentation when it said that the Napoleonic decrees were no longer being enforced; and calling for public meetings in New York to protest against the drift to hostilities154. When in April an effort was made to float the “Gallatin Loan,” Coleman did all that he could to discredit45 it. There was no security, he said; the interest rate, six per cent., was too low. “As it will very much depend upon the filling up of the loan whether we shall or shall not go to war, it is evident that no man who is averse to that calamity155 can ever, consistently, lend his assistance to the government to plunge156 us into it.”
The great majority of men of property in the city were with the Evening Post in its opposition; so were most of the lawyers, the faculty157 of Columbia College, the pastors158 of the leading churches, and professional men in general. On June 15, four days before the declaration of war, the Evening Post published a memorial of protest signed by fifty-six principal merchants, John Jacob Astor heading the list. It is clear that the Evening Post was at all times in close touch with commercial sentiment. In April it said that the best-informed men in town calculated the amount of American shipping and goods within British reach abroad, and liable to confiscation159, at $100,000,000. All seaport160 towns, it added, were exposed to bombardment and destruction by the British seventy-fours.47 Coleman but expressed the fears of the counting rooms along lower Broadway and the rich shopkeepers of Pearl Street when he assured New Yorkers that the State would be undone161. “This portion of the country will,” he warned, “on account of its wealth and the easy access to it by water, become the seat of war; and our defenseless situation will subject us, in the case of a few years war, to a desolation which a half century cannot restore.”
II
Twice has the Evening Post opposed with passionate163 detestation, from beginning to end, an American war. The two editors responsible, Coleman and E. L. Godkin, were as far as D’Artagnan from being weak-kneed pacifists. Both in their youth had shouldered arms; both were of Anglo-Irish blood, with a Celtic inclination toward battle; both went through life joyfully164 snuffing new frays165 from afar. It is well at this point, with Coleman taking the leadership of all the anti-war journals south of the Connecticut, to stop a moment to note what were his personal qualities, as shown in his editorship, and what the conditions of his work. The old-time journalist did not speak softly, and carried a big stick. Coleman had as much need as the rest to learn the use of dueling167 pistols, and to know how to graze the libel laws. “He was naturally courageous,” says Bryant, “and having entered into a dispute, he never sought to decline any of its consequences.”
We have noted168 that when Philip Hamilton was killed, the editor condemned dueling as barbarous, and called for a rigid169 legislation against it. Yet in 1803 he was himself provoked into a duel166. The previous autumn Cheetham had in an indirect, cowardly fashion charged him with the paternity of a mulatto child in Greenfield, a charge which Coleman had no difficulty in showing utterly170 false, but which he resented by a challenge. Cheetham accepted. News of the impending171 encounter got abroad, and Judge Brockholst Livingston immediately issued a48 bench warrant, compelled the appearance of the two editors before him, and allowed them to depart only after they had engaged not to use more deadly weapons than pen and ink. Unfortunately, one Captain Thompson, an ardent173 Democrat35, accused Coleman of letting the secret of the duel escape, and of having been animated174 by a cowardly motive175. Coleman promptly176 challenged the fire-eating captain, and early in the new year the pair fought in Love Lane, a sequestered177 road, then well outside the city, which followed the present line of Twenty-first Street between Sixth and Eighth Avenues. It was dusk of a cold winter’s day when they met, with snow falling and other circumstances uniting, as a second quaintly178 observed, to make the affair “uncomfortable.” They fired two shots at ten paces, and then, darkness coming down, moved closer and fired two more. Thompson, exclaiming “I’ve got it!” sank mortally wounded into the arms of his physician, Dr. McLean. He was carried to his sister’s house in town, was laid on the doorstep, the bell was rung, and the family found him bleeding and near death. He refused to tell who had shot him, or to give any evidence whatever regarding the duel, saying that everything had been honorably done—and his antagonist179 must not be molested180.
Coleman had repeated encounters of a less serious character. In the Evening Post of January 12, 1807, he begged the public to discredit Cheetham’s “account of the fracas181 on Saturday between Dr. Walker and myself,” as it was full of errors, but he did not offer the correct particulars himself. In 1810 blows were struck when his vote was challenged and he was insulted at the polls by a tavern-keeper who said that Coleman could not be a citizen because he had published the statement, “I had rather be a dog and bay the moon than own myself an American.” This was a Democratic garbling182 of a half-sentence in one of the Post’s editorials.
Early in 1818 the editor published a narrative183 of the misconduct of a certain Democrat named Henry B. Hagerman while traveling as a Judge Advocate up-State.49 Hagerman stopped at a Kingston hotel, kept by an estimable widow, and for some fancied grievance184 insulted her so grossly that no newspaper of to-day would print the details which Coleman laid before the public. On the evening of April 11 Coleman was overtaken by Hagerman near sunset at the corner of Murray and Church Streets, and attacked without warning from the rear. His assailant used the loaded butt14 of a rawhide185 whip. The editor was stunned by the first blow, was repeatedly struck and kicked as he lay prostrate186, and when he staggered to his feet, half blind with blood, was given a still more savage187 beating. Public indignation against Hagerman rose so high that he was hurried to jail for safety, and not being able to ask for a change of venue37, pleaded for postponement188 of his trial until it subsided189. Two years to a day after the murderous attack, Coleman was awarded $4,000 in damages, a huge sum for 1820. But it was none too large. The editor had been prostrated190 for weeks, recurrent strokes of paralysis191 followed, and he was never in sound health again.
The physical violence to which editors were then exposed harmonized with a violence of temper and manner which was far too prominent in journalism192, as in politics. In noting this abusiveness it must be remembered that the press was the product and mirror of its time. Politics was conducted with far more scurrility193 and coarseness than now, and the newspapers were largely an appendage194 of politics. A day of backwoods gouging195 and fashionable dueling, of constant fighting between street gangs in all the large cities, of fisticuffs on the floor of the House of Representatives, of a low standard of manners everywhere, was not a day for refined newspaper methods. It took time for editors to learn that hard reasons do more execution than hard names. Editors, moreover, were prone196 to set up medieval conventions; they regarded themselves as so many knights197 errant, roaming the land for battle, no sooner seeing a strange crest198 than they galloped199 to shiver lances.
It is usual to quote Coleman’s quatrain
50
Lie on, Duane, lie on for pay,
And Cheetham, lie thou too,
More ’gainst truth you cannot say
Than truth can say ’gainst you,
as a bold specimen200 of the editorial amenities201 of a century ago. But Coleman went far beyond the lie direct and countercheck quarrelsome. The American public has always refused to take at face value the epithets202 which editors exchange, and doubtless in Jefferson’s time it put a Pickwickian construction upon them. Referring to the most prominent Democratic editor, Coleman once quoted Milton’s line, “Squat like a toad203 at the ear of Eve,” adding: “I beg the devil’s pardon for comparing him in any shape with Duane.” Of Cheetham he said that he was so habituated to lying that given a choice of truth and mendacity he invariably preferred the latter, and on another occasion he listed twenty-five lies in a single article by “the President’s unlucky toad-eater.”
Coleman thought nothing of referring to Dr. Peter Irving, head of the Morning Chronicle, as a “malevolent coxcomb204,” and to his partner as “a pedant205 and blackguard.” Other journals fared no better. When the Public Advertiser, a new Clintonian organ, libeled the Evening Post, Coleman denounced its “villainy” and challenged the “vile reptiles” editing it to produce their evidence. The conductor of the Long Island Star also fell afoul of the Evening Post. “This Kirk I have always despised as a flippant, conceited206, shallow fellow,” wrote Coleman, “but I did not take him for so great a fool as his nonsense shows him to be, nor think him so black-hearted and malignant207 a calumniator208.” In 1806 he termed Samuel H. Smith of the Washington National Intelligencer, the so-called “court journal” of Jefferson, “the little monkey.” Nine years later, when the era of good feeling was commencing, he prided himself upon his repression209 in speaking of the same able newspaper, in the columns of which Clay had been glad to appear: “I shall take no other notice of the charge in that profligate210 paper51 than to say I have long observed there is no misrepresentation too base, no violation of truth too palpable, not to be gladly adopted and circulated by that infamous211 organ.”
Be it said to Coleman’s credit that these examples are the worst to be selected from the files for fifteen years, during which the issues of the Aurora212 and American Citizen teemed213 with such expressions. Moreover, there was some justification214 for them. Cheetham, and to a less extent Duane, were unabashed liars215; Peter Irving was so much of a coxcomb that even his friends called him “sissie Irving”; and Kirk certainly was a calumniator. Most creditable of all to Coleman, he refrained from dastardly slanders216 upon the private life of his contemporaries, whereas they gave him no such consideration. In 1807 he declared his conviction that Duane was in receipt of French gold, and many years later accused M. M. Noah, the famous Jewish journalist, of avowing217 himself open to a money bribe from the Clintonian faction61, but he said nothing of the conduct of any such man apart from his editorial office. Yet his own enemies fabricated a story that he had been dismissed from the Vermont bar because he had bored a hole in a courthouse ceiling to overhear rival counsel, and accused him of illegally converting the funds of Greenfield neighbors to his own uses.
It is not strange that when the press was filled with this sort of utterance218, libel suits were numerous. Cheetham at the beginning of 1804 had fourteen actions pending172 against him, and in 1807 admitted that the total damages which he had been compelled to pay reached almost $4,000. Aaron Burr had brought one of these suits, while ex-Mayor Varick in 1803 had obtained a judgment219 of $200. It is evidence of the comparatively moderate tone of the Evening Post that no suit against it ever succeeded, though a number were begun. One of these actions was brought by Robert Macomb, clerk of the Sessions Court, whom Coleman had accused of taking illegal fees, and another by a politician named Arcularius.
52
III
When war was actually declared in June, 1812, this belligerent132 editor, like most New York merchants, like four men in five throughout New England, believed that it meant the bootless ruin of trade and agriculture. It had come with such final suddenness, he said, that American ships in European waters would almost all be taken by British cruisers. It was professedly a war for freedom of the sea; in reality the shipping States believed, as Coleman put it, that it grew out of “the Southern anti-commercial spirit.”
De Witt Clinton, the ambitious mayor, who was courting the help of King, John Wells, and the Evening Post in his aspirations220 for the Federalist nomination221 against Madison that summer, told Coleman that he believed ninety-nine men in every hundred in the city really were opposed to the war. The editor was highly sarcastic222 in his references to the local Democrats223 as “fellow subjects of our loving Emperor Napoleon,” and in those to “Monsieurs Gallatin and Madison.” For a few weeks, while an alliance with France was thought a possibility, the Evening Post steadily declaimed against it. A war with Great Britain, fought single-handed, “will be neither a predatory war nor a bloody224 war,” it said; but if France sends her squadrons to the American coast, British fleets will follow, and the seaport towns will suffer. When Daniel Webster, a young man of thirty almost unknown outside New Hampshire, delivered a Fourth of July oration225 denouncing any co?peration with France, he was fervently226 praised.
New Yorkers were fearful of two perils228: a British invasion across the St. Lawrence or Niagara Rivers, and bombardments by sea. “We are fighting the world’s greatest Power,” protested Coleman, “without the means of annoyance229 or even defense162.” He told his readers, incorrectly, that the frigate96 Constitution was sent from Norfolk to Boston with only two rounds of cannonballs; and correctly, that Fort Niagara, on an “exposed and53 utterly defenseless frontier,” had scarcely powder enough for a Fourth of July salute230.
For armaments at sea the Evening Post was always eloquent231, but it took a different attitude toward the bustle232 of preparations to invade Canada. When President Madison requested the Governors to place the militia233 at his disposal, Coleman applauded the New England executives who refused. Conjuring234 up a vision of a harsh military despotism, he pronounced the President’s action one “highly dangerous to the liberties of the people, and to our republican form of government.” In editorial after editorial, moreover, he discouraged recruiting for Federal regiments235. Are you willing, he asked volunteers, “to attempt foreign conquests while your wives and little ones are left exposed to an exasperated236 and unfeeling foe237?” As autumn came on, he made the most of the reports of suffering among underclad troops. He wished no one to forget that their misery238 had been caused by “a wretched, incapable239, mob-courting administration, less concerned to provide supplies for their army than to secure by low intrigue240 the places they so unworthily fill.”
It required no little courage to declare that the war was “a great national calamity,” that it was “clearly unjust,” and that the points in dispute were not worth the blood and treasure being spent. Two years previous, when the Evening Post was angrily opposing the impending conflict, a mob of Democrats had gathered at Martling’s Porter-House, and just before midnight had attacked the house of Michael Burnham, part-owner of the journal, smashing his windows, and nearly killing241 an infant. Just after the declaration of war occurred the memorable242 mob attack upon the Baltimore Federal Republican, in which Gen. James Lingan, a Revolutionary veteran defending the office, was killed, and Gen. Henry Lee crippled. Jack142 Binns, in the Philadelphia Democratic Press, proclaimed that it would be only natural if a body of angry men executed the same summary justice upon the traitorous243 editor of the Evening Post. For some time anonymous244 threats poured in upon Coleman.54 Among them was one which left him so certain that violence was actually brewing245 that he applied246 to Mayor Clinton for protection; and the city watch was doubled, special constables247 were held in readiness, and a party of armed friends spent the night at Coleman’s house. Nothing, however, occurred.
Coleman defiantly248 maintained that his right to free speech was in no way abridged249 by the declaration of war, and published a special series of editorials, highly legalistic in nature, denouncing the Baltimore outrage. He reminded the Democrats that in intimidating250 and attacking the Federalists for their opposition they had short memories. Had they forgotten their open resistance to the hostilities which the United States waged against France in 1798? This attitude, fortunately, met with powerful support. At a great peace mass-meeting in Washington Hall on Aug. 18, John Jay, Rufus King, Gouverneur Morris, Egbert Benson, and Richard Varick all assailed251 the war and asserted the right to outspoken criticism of it. By this date Coleman’s views had met what seemed to him the strongest possible confirmation252. It had become known early in August that the British had repealed253 the Orders in Council, which were the great cause of the war, and for a moment hopes of peace had risen high; but Madison immediately rejected the armistice254 proffered255 by the British commander Prevost. The anger of New York and New England Federalists passed all bounds. “God of truth and mercy!” raged the Evening Post. “Our treasure is to be wasted, our immense frontiers are to be one scene of devastation256, where the merciless savage is to revel257 in the blood of defenseless men, women, and children, because the form of the revocation258 is not satisfactory to our precise and critical President!”
The first news of an important military event confirmed Coleman’s gloomy apprehensions259. On Aug. 31 he was able to write a long editorial upon Hull’s surrender at Detroit in that I-told-you-so spirit which is an editor’s subtlest joy. He called it disgraceful:
55
A nation, counting eight millions of souls, deliberating and planning for a whole winter and spring, and part of a summer, the invasion and conquest of a neighboring province, at length making that invasion; and in one month its army retiring—captured—and captured in a fortified place—captured almost without firing a gun! Miserably260 deficient261 in practical talent must be the administration which formed the plan of that invasion; or the army which has thus surrendered must be a gang of more cowardly poltroons, than ever disgraced a country....
What! March an army into a country where there were not more than seven or eight hundred soldiers to oppose them, and not make the army large enough! March them from a country, which is the granary of the world, and let them famish on the very frontiers for want of provisions! Issue a gasconading proclamation threatening to exterminate262 the enemy, and surrender your whole army to them! If there be judgment in this people, they will see the utter unfitness of our rulers for anything beyond management, intrigue, and electioneering.—They have talents enough to influence a misguided populace against their best friends; but they cannot protect the nation from insult and disgrace.
Similar attacks upon the Administration’s incompetence263 followed every other reverse. From the early defeat at Queenstown Heights to the “Bladensburg Races,” when an American force fled ignominiously264 before Cockburn’s invaders265 and exposed Washington to capture, the Evening Post missed no opportunity for harsh criticism. “Woe to that nation whose king is a child!” was a favorite quotation266 of Coleman’s. The journal was far from unpatriotic, and sincerely deplored267 the several defeats, but it held the government rigidly268 responsible for them.
The editor never changed his opinion that, to use his words in the last year of the war, it was “an unsuccessful war, ... a war declared without just cause and without preparation, for the continuance of which no man can assign a reason, and from the termination of which no man expects an advantage.” And patriotic though Coleman was, he rejoiced in the failure of the successive efforts to invade Canada. He thought conquest in that quarter the most shameless territory-grabbing. In these utterances56 we catch the first accents of the Evening Post’s century-long campaign against “imperialism.” He wrote late in 1814:
Uti Possidetis, or Keep What You’ve Got.—The Lexington paper (Kentucky) some time ago, before the British had got possession of Fort Niagara, Michilimackinac, Castine, Moose Island, etc., etc., about the time when Gen. Wilkinson was to sup “in Montreal or Heaven,” this paper then said if any ministers should make a treaty on any other basis, than each to keep what they had got, they ought to have a halter. But then it was my bull and your cow.
In sharp contrast with these editorials were the exultant269 comments of the journal upon the dazzling successes of the Americans at sea. The Federalists since 1801 had constantly called for a larger navy. The first-known and most famous sea-fight of 1812 was the victory on Aug. 19 of the Constitution over the Guerriere, a vessel with which a London paper had declared no American ship could cope. “We have always contended that on an equal footing Americans can be whipped by none,” cried the Evening Post. “Man for man and gun for gun, even the veteran British tars270 can get no advantage over the Americans.” With a shrewd appreciation271 of the opportunities which Perry and McDonough seized, it began to insist upon a naval force on the lakes. Naturally, it still taunted272 the Democrats:
Though very little present benefit is to be expected from the war, commenced as it has been and carried on as it will be, under the present administration, yet it may have one good effect; it will prove that in a contest where the freedom of the seas is the object, a naval force is much superior to an army on the land. It will prove, what the Federalists have always advocated, and what the present ruling party have always opposed, the necessity of a maritime273 force to a commercial people.
News came soon after of the capture of the British sloop274 Alert by the American frigate Essex, and on Dec. 7 it was known that the United States, commanded by Decatur,57 had taken the Macedonian. “This is the third victory which has crowned our little naval force with laurels—may they bloom perennial275!” exclaimed Coleman. He rather ill-naturedly accused the Administration of begrudging276 the seamen, who were mostly Yankees, their victories. “Our language is,” he concluded, “give us commerce and let us alone to protect it. We have ships and we have men; nor will we go to France for either, though your Jeffersons may recommend it ever so warmly.”
Nor did the Evening Post fail to take a vigorously patriotic attitude upon the questions raised by the Hartford Convention. The year 1814 drew to a close with the entire coast tightly blockaded by the British, the invasions of Canada all failures, the capitol at Washington in ashes, the British in possession of northern Maine, and their hands at last free in Europe. Mr. Madison’s war had ceased to be an offensive war, and had become defensive277. The national government, almost without an army, almost without money, seemed on the point of collapse278. On Dec. 15 there met at Hartford a convention of delegates from all the New England States, who for three weeks deliberated in secret; some believed that they were laying plans to declare all New England—as Nantucket had already declared herself—neutral, and to throw open its ports to the British, while others said that they were plotting secession, and the erection of a Yankee republic.
Coleman at the time had been called to Middletown, Conn., on business, and proceeded to Hartford to see some friends. Theodore Dwight, the secretary of the convention, later stated that the editor tried to gain informal entrance, but this Coleman denied. He never, even when years afterward279 the Hartford Convention had become an object of deep reproach, condemned it. But upon returning to New York he did express a deprecatory opinion of it. He commenced by declaring that the uproar280 of the Southerners over this “treasonable” gathering281 was as hypocritical as it was groundless. Who were these canting Virginians who inveighed282 against separatism and58 State Rights? The North had not forgotten that when Jay’s treaty arrived, the newspapers of Virginia unanimously began to discuss secession. It had not forgotten that Senator Giles, author of the detestable Conscription bill which had just failed, had then openly advocated a dissolution of the union. Had not Madison maintained, in the Virginia Assembly, the abstract right of secession? But Coleman then proceeded to speak a word of reassurance283, and another of warning:
What precisely284 the Convention will do, it would be presumption285 in any one to predict.... But from our personal knowledge of the gentlemen composing the Convention, it will not be difficult to pronounce with certainty what they will not do. They have been selected from the most respectable men in New England, distinguished286 for their prudence287, for their wisdom, for their firmness.... We may be justified in saying this respectable body, with such a president [George Cabot] at their head, will not do anything rash or precipitate288 or violent; they will not take any step but what every man of sound principles, every friend to social order throughout the union, will approve.... While they are bent289 on preserving the rights that are reserved to the States or the people, from usurpation290 and abuse, they will take care not to trench upon those powers which are delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The vessel at present wears well, and while there is room to believe that she will go safe about, and there is sea-room enough to do it in, why should they attempt to throw her in stays?
The vessel did come safe about. When six weeks later the news of the treaty of Ghent reached New York late at night, the city was thrown into such jubilation291 by the mere ending of the conflict that no one stopped to inquire the terms. But Coleman and the other local Federalist leaders, as they watched the crowds surging up and down Broadway crying—“A peace! A peace!” knew that the Democrats had nothing to boast. After a calm Sunday, the editor presented his views on Monday morning. He would stake his reputation that when the terms became known, “it will be found that the government have not by the negotiation obtained one single avowed292 object,59 for which they involved the country in this bloody and expensive war.” He enumerated293 these objects—the stoppage of impressments, the conquest of Canada, and the abolition294 of commercial restrictions295. He catalogued the loss of life, the suffering on every frontier, and the waste of $150,000,000 in treasure. The one gain that Mr. Madison had obtained was a second term at $25,000 a year in a marble executive mansion296, gorgeously refurnished. But, he concluded, “let the nation rejoice—we have escaped ruin.”
A part of Coleman’s disloyalty in the war, as opposition journals called it, lay in his vindictive297 pleasure over every disaster that befell French arms. Editorials on foreign affairs were rare, and usually ill-informed. But three months after war was declared the Evening Post based upon Wellington’s victories in Spain the sound prediction that the French forces would soon be compelled to evacuate298 the Peninsula altogether. “Bonaparte will never be emperor of the world,” wrote Coleman, with an eye also upon Russia’s hostility; “it will require all his talents to maintain himself even on the throne of France.” On Dec. 12, 1812, when news had just reached New York of the burning of Moscow (Sept. 16–20), leaving Napoleon stranded299 on an ashheap, a really shrewd statement of his peril227 appeared:
We have conversed300 with an intelligent gentleman who resided a long time in Russia, and about seven years of the time in the city of Moscow. He informs us that the weather in that country is generally pleasant till after the first of October, when the frost sets in, and excessive storms of rain and sleet301 are experienced, and continue with very little intermission until about the middle of December. All the time the roads are so overwhelmed with water and ice, that traveling is extremely uncomfortable, and many times quite impracticable. After the middle of December the snows begin to fall in such quantities that all traveling is entirely302 at an end; and the usual communication from town to town is interrupted for several weeks, the snows sometimes falling to the depth of eight or ten feet. He thinks, if Bonaparte did not commence his retreat from Moscow by the middle of October, that60 he will be obliged to winter there; for after that time it will be impossible for him to get out of Russia.... If he is obliged to winter there, the Russians have nothing to do but to cut off his supplies until about the middle of December, after which time all travel ceases until spring, and the great army of the north will be annihilated303.
Indeed, it is plain from all the accounts we can collect from ... the French papers ... that the Russians have nothing to do but to hold out this winter, and their country will be relieved from its invaders. That they are determined304 to persevere305 appears to be certain; the destruction of such a city as Moscow is a proof of that determination, and a sure pledge that they will never surrender while they can hold a foot of ground.
Although the defeat of Napoleon at Leipsic meant that England would thenceforth be able to turn Wellington’s veteran armies against us, Federalist editors rejoiced as if it had been an American victory. They forgot for the moment the implications of the event for the war on this side; they thought only of the triumph of freedom over a military despot. “It is the morning dawn of liberty in Europe after a long, a dark, and a dismal306 night,” wrote Coleman. “This is the first ray of light which has visited the eyes of an oppressed people for many years past. For while Bonaparte remained in power even hope was dead—nothing but tyranny and oppression could be expected. And so firm had he fixed307 himself in his usurped308 seat, that it appeared almost out of the power of human exertions309 to shake him.... New prospects310 are opening up on the thinking mind; humanity appears to be near the end of her sufferings.”
The wars in Europe and America over, the old rancors forgotten, Coleman gladly accepted the era of good feeling. In the spring of 1816 the Evening Post supported Rufus King in his losing fight for the Governorship. But from the beginning of the year it had made up its mind that the Democrats, headed by Monroe, would gain the Presidency311 that fall, and it went through the motions of sustaining King for the higher office—he received only 34 electoral votes against Monroe’s 183—listlessly. Monroe’s61 success made of the Federalist party a mere corpse312, over which factions313 in State politics fought like hyenas314. Coleman showed no reluctance315 in admitting the demise316, though he conventionally explained it as resulting from the Democratic adoption317 of Federalist principles. When in 1819 the Aurora attacked Monroe, the Evening Post actually flew out in the President’s defense. It was satisfied, wrote the editor, “that, take it all in all, the administration of James Monroe is, at this day, more generally acceptable to all classes of society in the United States, than that of any other man has ever been, since the days of Washington.” Coleman was entertained in 1819 by Vice-President Tompkins at the latter’s Staten Island home, and confessed later that he fell quite under the sway of Tompkins’s “great affability” and “his winning and familiar manner.” In short, by 1820 no one would have been surprised if some prophet had foretold318 that the journal of the “Federalist Field-Marshal” would shortly become the leading Democratic organ in the city.
But while it became half-Democratic, the Evening Post never ceased to be the spokesman of the best commercial sentiment in the city. As such, it opposed, with a bitter show of sectional feeling, the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The question at issue, said Coleman, was nothing more or less than “whether they shall or shall not be allowed to establish a new market for the sale of human flesh.” When the Virginia Legislature made a veiled threat of secession unless Missouri were admitted, Coleman rated the South angrily. They were hypocrites to talk about the Hartford Convention; they had been cowards when Washington was burned; on John Randolph’s own statement, they were in constant fear of a slave insurrection—these and other “bitter taunts,” as the Richmond Enquirer319 called them, proved the force of Jefferson’s statement that the Missouri controversy320 was like a firebell in the dark.
But the disintegration321 of the Federalist party of course robbed the Evening Post of a great part of its influence. It was no longer a sounding board for the best leadership62 of that party; men no longer recognized in its utterance the voices of Hamilton’s ablest and most energetic successors, King, Troup, Jay, Kent, and Morris. It became merely one of a half dozen journals recognized to have editors of brains and principle; and in 1816 it was destined322 to wait just a decade until it began to receive distinction from a man of something more than brains—a man of genius.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
addicted
|
|
| adj.沉溺于....的，对...上瘾的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
cession
|
|
| n.割让，转让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
abruptly
|
|
| adv.突然地，出其不意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
ponderous
|
|
| adj.沉重的，笨重的，(文章)冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
shrillness
|
|
| 尖锐刺耳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
8
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
meager
|
|
| adj.缺乏的，不足的，瘦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
buck
|
|
| n.雄鹿，雄兔；v.马离地跳跃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
overalls
|
|
| n.（复）工装裤；长罩衣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
brass
|
|
| n.黄铜；黄铜器，铜管乐器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
butt
|
|
| n.笑柄；烟蒂；枪托；臀部；v.用头撞或顶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
linen
|
|
| n.亚麻布，亚麻线，亚麻制品；adj.亚麻布制的，亚麻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
prospectus
|
|
| n.计划书；说明书；慕股书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
treacherous
|
|
| adj.不可靠的，有暗藏的危险的；adj.背叛的，背信弃义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
averse
|
|
| adj.厌恶的；反对的，不乐意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
personalities
|
|
| n. 诽谤，（对某人容貌、性格等所进行的）人身攻击； 人身攻击；人格, 个性, 名人( personality的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
outrageously
|
|
| 凶残地； 肆无忌惮地； 令人不能容忍地； 不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
vilified
|
|
| v.中伤，诽谤( vilify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
harping
|
|
| n.反复述说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
tar
|
|
| n.柏油，焦油；vt.涂或浇柏油/焦油于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
profligacy
|
|
| n.放荡，不检点，肆意挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
impudence
|
|
| n.厚颜无耻；冒失；无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
marine
|
|
| adj.海的；海生的；航海的；海事的；n.水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
democrat
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士；民主党党员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
outspoken
|
|
| adj.直言无讳的，坦率的，坦白无隐的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
venue
|
|
| n.犯罪地点，审判地，管辖地，发生地点，集合地点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
laboriously
|
|
| adv.艰苦地；费力地；辛勤地；（文体等）佶屈聱牙地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ridiculed
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
discredit
|
|
| vt.使不可置信；n.丧失信义；不信，怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
exuberance
|
|
| n.丰富；繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
bluffs
|
|
| 恐吓( bluff的名词复数 )； 悬崖； 峭壁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
amiable
|
|
| adj.和蔼可亲的，友善的，亲切的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
shrubs
|
|
| 灌木( shrub的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
westward
|
|
| n.西方，西部；adj.西方的，向西的；adv.向西 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
waded
|
|
| （从水、泥等）蹚，走过，跋( wade的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
relish
|
|
| n.滋味，享受，爱好，调味品；vt.加调味料，享受，品味；vi.有滋味 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
mediocre
|
|
| adj.平常的，普通的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
bribe
|
|
| n.贿赂；v.向…行贿，买通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
traitors
|
|
| 卖国贼( traitor的名词复数 )； 叛徒； 背叛者； 背信弃义的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
remonstrance
|
|
| n抗议，抱怨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
compliant
|
|
| adj.服从的，顺从的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
retaliation
|
|
| n.报复，反击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
constituents
|
|
| n.选民( constituent的名词复数 )；成分；构成部分；要素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
shipping
|
|
| n.船运（发货，运输，乘船） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
seizures
|
|
| n.起获( seizure的名词复数 )；没收；充公；起获的赃物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
condone
|
|
| v.宽恕；原谅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
leopard
|
|
| n.豹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
deserted
|
|
| adj.荒芜的，荒废的，无人的，被遗弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
warship
|
|
| n.军舰，战舰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
Flared
|
|
| adj. 端部张开的, 爆发的, 加宽的, 漏斗式的 动词flare的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
patriot
|
|
| n.爱国者，爱国主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
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： |
|
|
|
|
83
vigor
|
|
| n.活力，精力，元气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
offenders
|
|
| n.冒犯者( offender的名词复数 )；犯规者；罪犯；妨害…的人（或事物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
martial
|
|
| adj.战争的，军事的，尚武的，威武的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
acquit
|
|
| vt.宣判无罪；(oneself)使(自己)表现出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
convened
|
|
| 召开( convene的过去式 )； 召集； （为正式会议而）聚集； 集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
embargo
|
|
| n.禁运（令）；vt.对...实行禁运，禁止（通商） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
humbly
|
|
| adv. 恭顺地，谦卑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
envoys
|
|
| 使节( envoy的名词复数 )； 公使； 谈判代表； 使节身份 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
envoy
|
|
| n.使节，使者，代表，公使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
fortified
|
|
| adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
frigates
|
|
| n.快速军舰( frigate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
frigate
|
|
| n.护航舰，大型驱逐舰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
harped
|
|
| vi.弹竖琴（harp的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
attachment
|
|
| n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
venerate
|
|
| v.尊敬，崇敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
luster
|
|
| n.光辉；光泽，光亮；荣誉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
trench
|
|
| n./v.(挖)沟，(挖)战壕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
seaman
|
|
| n.海员，水手，水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
inflamed
|
|
| adj.发炎的，红肿的v.（使）变红，发怒，过热( inflame的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
reclaim
|
|
| v.要求归还，收回；开垦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
stunned
|
|
| adj. 震惊的，惊讶的 动词stun的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
apprehension
|
|
| n.理解，领悟；逮捕，拘捕；忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
distress
|
|
| n.苦恼，痛苦，不舒适；不幸；vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
laboring
|
|
| n.劳动，操劳v.努力争取(for)( labor的现在分词 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
barges
|
|
| 驳船( barge的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
hogs
|
|
| n.（尤指喂肥供食用的）猪( hog的名词复数 )；（供食用的）阉公猪；彻底地做某事；自私的或贪婪的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
herds
|
|
| 兽群( herd的名词复数 )； 牧群； 人群； 群众 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
slaughtering
|
|
| v.屠杀，杀戮，屠宰( slaughter的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
consignment
|
|
| n.寄售；发货；委托；交运货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
shipwrights
|
|
| n.造船者，修船者( shipwright的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
123
implement
|
|
| n.(pl.)工具，器具；vt.实行，实施，执行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
negotiation
|
|
| n.谈判，协商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
bankruptcy
|
|
| n.破产；无偿付能力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
depleted
|
|
| adj. 枯竭的, 废弃的 动词deplete的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
scatter
|
|
| vt.撒，驱散，散开；散布/播；vi.分散，消散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
ragged
|
|
| adj.衣衫褴褛的，粗糙的，刺耳的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
impaired
|
|
| adj.受损的；出毛病的；有（身体或智力）缺陷的v.损害，削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
belligerent
|
|
| adj.好战的，挑起战争的；n.交战国，交战者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
belligerents
|
|
| n.交战的一方（指国家、集团或个人）( belligerent的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
garnished
|
|
| v.给（上餐桌的食物）加装饰( garnish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
languishing
|
|
| a. 衰弱下去的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
veins
|
|
| n.纹理；矿脉( vein的名词复数 )；静脉；叶脉；纹理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
rupture
|
|
| n.破裂；(关系的)决裂；v.(使)破裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
jack
|
|
| n.插座，千斤顶，男人；v.抬起，提醒，扛举；n.（Jake）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
shamefully
|
|
| 可耻地； 丢脸地； 不体面地； 羞耻地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
jersey
|
|
| n.运动衫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
pessimism
|
|
| n.悲观者，悲观主义者，厌世者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
stagnant
|
|
| adj.不流动的，停滞的，不景气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
pestilence
|
|
| n.瘟疫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
pristine
|
|
| adj.原来的，古时的，原始的，纯净的，无垢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
liar
|
|
| n.说谎的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
calamity
|
|
| n.灾害，祸患，不幸事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
pastors
|
|
| n.（基督教的）牧师( pastor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
confiscation
|
|
| n. 没收, 充公, 征收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
seaport
|
|
| n.海港，港口，港市 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
undone
|
|
| a.未做完的，未完成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
passionate
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，激昂的，易动情的，易怒的，性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
joyfully
|
|
| adv. 喜悦地, 高兴地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
frays
|
|
| n.（使布、绳等）磨损，磨破( fray的名词复数 )v.（使布、绳等）磨损，磨破( fray的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
duel
|
|
| n./v.决斗；(双方的)斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
dueling
|
|
| n. 决斗, 抗争(=duelling) 动词duel的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
impending
|
|
| a.imminent, about to come or happen | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
pending
|
|
| prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
sequestered
|
|
| adj.扣押的；隐退的；幽静的；偏僻的v.使隔绝，使隔离( sequester的过去式和过去分词 )；扣押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
quaintly
|
|
| adv.古怪离奇地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
antagonist
|
|
| n.敌人，对抗者，对手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
molested
|
|
| v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 )；干扰；调戏；猥亵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
fracas
|
|
| n.打架；吵闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
garbling
|
|
| v.对（事实）歪曲，对（文章等）断章取义，窜改( garble的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
183
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
grievance
|
|
| n.怨愤，气恼，委屈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
rawhide
|
|
| n.生牛皮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
prostrate
|
|
| v.拜倒，平卧，衰竭；adj.拜倒的，平卧的，衰竭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
postponement
|
|
| n.推迟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
subsided
|
|
| v.（土地）下陷（因在地下采矿）( subside的过去式和过去分词 )；减弱；下降至较低或正常水平；一下子坐在椅子等上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
prostrated
|
|
| v.使俯伏，使拜倒( prostrate的过去式和过去分词 )；（指疾病、天气等）使某人无能为力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
paralysis
|
|
| n.麻痹(症)；瘫痪(症) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
journalism
|
|
| n.新闻工作，报业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
scurrility
|
|
| n.粗俗下流；辱骂的言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
appendage
|
|
| n.附加物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
gouging
|
|
| n.刨削[槽]v.凿( gouge的现在分词 )；乱要价；（在…中）抠出…；挖出… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
prone
|
|
| adj.(to)易于…的，很可能…的；俯卧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
knights
|
|
| 骑士； （中古时代的）武士( knight的名词复数 )； 骑士； 爵士； （国际象棋中）马 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
crest
|
|
| n.顶点；饰章；羽冠；vt.达到顶点；vi.形成浪尖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
galloped
|
|
| （使马）飞奔，奔驰( gallop的过去式和过去分词 )； 快速做[说]某事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
amenities
|
|
| n.令人愉快的事物；礼仪；礼节；便利设施；礼仪( amenity的名词复数 )；便利设施；（环境等的）舒适；（性情等的）愉快 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
epithets
|
|
| n.（表示性质、特征等的）词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
toad
|
|
| n.蟾蜍，癞蛤蟆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
coxcomb
|
|
| n.花花公子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
pedant
|
|
| n.迂儒；卖弄学问的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
conceited
|
|
| adj.自负的，骄傲自满的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
calumniator
|
|
| n.中伤者，诽谤者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
repression
|
|
| n.镇压，抑制，抑压 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
profligate
|
|
| adj.行为不检的；n.放荡的人，浪子，肆意挥霍者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
aurora
|
|
| n.极光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
teemed
|
|
| v.充满( teem的过去式和过去分词 )；到处都是；（指水、雨等）暴降；倾注 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
liars
|
|
| 说谎者( liar的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
slanders
|
|
| 诽谤，诋毁( slander的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
avowing
|
|
| v.公开声明，承认( avow的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
aspirations
|
|
| 强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 )； 志向； 发送气音； 发 h 音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
oration
|
|
| n.演说，致辞，叙述法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
fervently
|
|
| adv.热烈地，热情地，强烈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
perils
|
|
| 极大危险( peril的名词复数 )； 危险的事（或环境） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
annoyance
|
|
| n.恼怒，生气，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
salute
|
|
| vi.行礼，致意，问候，放礼炮；vt.向…致意，迎接，赞扬；n.招呼，敬礼，礼炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
bustle
|
|
| v.喧扰地忙乱，匆忙，奔忙；n.忙碌；喧闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
militia
|
|
| n.民兵，民兵组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
conjuring
|
|
| n.魔术 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
regiments
|
|
| （军队的）团( regiment的名词复数 )； 大量的人或物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
exasperated
|
|
| adj.恼怒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
foe
|
|
| n.敌人，仇敌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
memorable
|
|
| adj.值得回忆的，难忘的，特别的，显著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
traitorous
|
|
| adj. 叛国的, 不忠的, 背信弃义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
anonymous
|
|
| adj.无名的；匿名的；无特色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
brewing
|
|
| n. 酿造, 一次酿造的量 动词brew的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
constables
|
|
| n.警察( constable的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
defiantly
|
|
| adv.挑战地，大胆对抗地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
abridged
|
|
| 削减的，删节的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
intimidating
|
|
| vt.恐吓，威胁( intimidate的现在分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
repealed
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
armistice
|
|
| n.休战，停战协定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
proffered
|
|
| v.提供，贡献，提出( proffer的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
devastation
|
|
| n.毁坏；荒废；极度震惊或悲伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
revel
|
|
| vi.狂欢作乐，陶醉；n.作乐，狂欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
revocation
|
|
| n.废止，撤回 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
apprehensions
|
|
| 疑惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
miserably
|
|
| adv.痛苦地；悲惨地；糟糕地；极度地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
deficient
|
|
| adj.不足的，不充份的，有缺陷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
exterminate
|
|
| v.扑灭，消灭，根绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
incompetence
|
|
| n.不胜任，不称职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
ignominiously
|
|
| adv.耻辱地，屈辱地，丢脸地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
invaders
|
|
| 入侵者，侵略者，侵入物( invader的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
266
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
267
deplored
|
|
| v.悲叹，痛惜，强烈反对( deplore的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
268
rigidly
|
|
| adv.刻板地，僵化地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
269
exultant
|
|
| adj.欢腾的，狂欢的，大喜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
270
tars
|
|
| 焦油，沥青，柏油( tar的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
271
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
272
taunted
|
|
| 嘲讽( taunt的过去式和过去分词 )； 嘲弄； 辱骂； 奚落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
273
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
274
sloop
|
|
| n.单桅帆船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
275
perennial
|
|
| adj.终年的；长久的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
276
begrudging
|
|
| 嫉妒( begrudge的现在分词 )； 勉强做； 不乐意地付出； 吝惜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
277
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
278
collapse
|
|
| vi.累倒；昏倒；倒塌；塌陷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
279
afterward
|
|
| adv.后来；以后 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
280
uproar
|
|
| n.骚动，喧嚣，鼎沸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
281
gathering
|
|
| n.集会，聚会，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
282
inveighed
|
|
| v.猛烈抨击，痛骂，谩骂( inveigh的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
283
reassurance
|
|
| n.使放心，使消除疑虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
284
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
285
presumption
|
|
| n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
286
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
287
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
288
precipitate
|
|
| adj.突如其来的；vt.使突然发生；n.沉淀物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
289
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
290
usurpation
|
|
| n.篡位；霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
291
jubilation
|
|
| n.欢庆，喜悦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
292
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： |
|
|
|
|
293
enumerated
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
294
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
295
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
296
mansion
|
|
| n.大厦，大楼；宅第 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
297
vindictive
|
|
| adj.有报仇心的，怀恨的，惩罚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
298
evacuate
|
|
| v.遣送；搬空；抽出；排泄；大(小)便 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
299
stranded
|
|
| a.搁浅的，进退两难的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
300
conversed
|
|
| v.交谈，谈话( converse的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
301
sleet
|
|
| n.雨雪；v.下雨雪，下冰雹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
302
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
303
annihilated
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的过去式和过去分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
304
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
305
persevere
|
|
| v.坚持，坚忍，不屈不挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
306
dismal
|
|
| adj.阴沉的，凄凉的，令人忧郁的，差劲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
307
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
308
usurped
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的过去式和过去分词 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
309
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
310
prospects
|
|
| n.希望，前途(恒为复数) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
311
presidency
|
|
| n.总统(校长，总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
312
corpse
|
|
| n.尸体，死尸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
313
factions
|
|
| 组织中的小派别，派系( faction的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
314
hyenas
|
|
| n.鬣狗( hyena的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
315
reluctance
|
|
| n.厌恶，讨厌，勉强，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
316
demise
|
|
| n.死亡；v.让渡，遗赠，转让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
317
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
318
foretold
|
|
| v.预言，预示( foretell的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
319
enquirer
|
|
| 寻问者，追究者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
320
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
321
disintegration
|
|
| n.分散，解体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
322
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |