Most of the metropolitan4 newspapers emerged from the Civil War with increased circulation, and several, like the Evening Post, with enhanced prosperity. The circulation was not high by present standards: when peace was declared the Sun was printing about 50,000 copies, the Times about 35,000, and the Evening Post about 20,000. But the influence of the New York press has never been larger, for four great journalists were then at the height of their reputation. Raymond of the Times had four more years to live, Bennett of the Herald6 and Greeley of the Tribune had seven, and Bryant, the oldest editor of all, thirteen. The younger generation was not quite yet needed—not until 1868 did Dana join the Sun, and Whitelaw Reid the Tribune.
When the problems of reconstruction presented themselves, everybody knew where the large group of Democratic journals would stand. The Herald, the World, the Express, and the Daily News, loyal to the grand old party of Polk and Buchanan, would urge the restoration of the Southern States to their former standing7 as quickly and gently as possible. The only real curiosity was as to the Evening Post, Times, and Tribune.
Having held the radical8 views of Chase and Sumner in the war, having constantly demanded more energy in its prosecution9, the Evening Post might have been expected to advocate severity toward the South. For a time there were indications that it would do so. When Lincoln, just before his death, declared in favor of encouraging and perfecting the new State governments already set up in the South, saying “We shall sooner have the fowl11 by hatching the egg than by smashing it,” Bryant was doubtful. “But if it should happen that these eggs are cockatrice’s327 eggs, what then?” he demanded. For some months after Appomattox the Post expressed its wish that “traitors” like Jefferson Davis, Hunter, Benjamin, Wigfall, and Wise could be brought to trial; it was not necessary to put them to death—they could be pardoned if condemned12—but justice demanded a stern arraignment13.
Yet it soon became evident that the Evening Post’s influence would be on the side of moderation and leniency14. Bryant’s fine obituary15 editorial on Lincoln struck this note clearly. He spoke16 of Lincoln’s gentle policies:
How skillfully he had avoided and postponed18 needless troubles, the ease and tranquillity19 of our return from a time of passionate20 conflict to a time of serene21 repose22 is a proof; how wisely he had contrived23 to put off the suggestions of an extreme or fanatical zeal24 everybody has been ready to acknowledge, for Mr. Lincoln brought to his high office no prejudice of section, no personal resentments25, no unkind or bitter feelings of hatred26, and throughout the trying time of his Administration he has never uttered one rancorous word toward the South....
The whole nation mourns the death of its President, but no part of it ought to mourn that death more keenly than our brothers of the South, who had more to expect from his clemency27 and sense of justice than from any other man who could succeed to his position. The insanity28 of the assassination29, indeed, if it was instigated30 by the rebels, appears in the stronger light when we reflect on the generosity31 and tenderness with which he was disposed to close up the war, to bury its feuds32, to heal over its wounds, and to restore to all parts of the nation that good feeling which once prevailed, and which ought to prevail again. Let us pray God that those who come after him may imitate his virtues33 and imbibe34 the spirit of his goodness.
The stand taken by Bryant’s friend Chase, the poet’s natural generosity, and the reports of a desire for reconciliation35 sent by Southern correspondents, caused the paper to assume an unflinching advocacy of President Johnson’s mild policy, and to attack the harsh measures of Congress. In this attitude the Times was with it. The Tribune took the other side vehemently36, and, in a more reasonable way, it was espoused37 by the city’s three great weekly organs of opinion, E. L. Godkin’s Nation,328 Harper’s Weekly, and the Independent, from which Henry Ward10 Beecher, disagreeing with Theodore Tilton’s severe views, soon resigned.
Into the Evening Post’s opinions upon the whole kaleidoscopic38 succession of bills and acts bearing upon reconstruction, from 1865 to 1868, it is impossible to go in detail. Its fundamental doctrine39 was fully17 outlined as early as May 2, 1865. The two great objects, it affirmed, were to depart as little as possible from the old-established principles of State government, and “to do nothing for revenge, nothing in the mere40 spirit of proscription41.” It believed that a convention should be called in each State to annul42 the ordinance43 of secession, and, by writing a new State Constitution, to repudiate44 the rebel debt, guarantee the negroes equal civil rights, and regulate the elective franchise45 according to immutable46 principles of certain application, discarding all arbitrary and capricious rules. The States should also ratify47 the anti-slavery amendment48 of the Federal Constitution by popular vote. “As soon as the political power has thus been regularly reconstituted the State, as a matter of course, resumes her relations to the union, elects members of Congress, and stands in all respects on a footing with the States” of the North.
Urging this policy, Bryant and the Evening Post wished to end military rule at the South as quickly as possible, while the Congressional radicals49, led by Wade50 and Thaddeus Stevens, like the Tribune and Nation, regarded its indefinite continuance as necessary. The Evening Post held that the illiterate51 negroes were unfit to vote and should be required to pass through a probationary52 period; it wished the Southern ballot53 based upon an educational test. The Tribune and the Sun supported full negro suffrage54. When the first Southern States sent Representatives to Congress the Evening Post, like the Times and World, wished them admitted. The World, indeed, bitterly assailed55 the “rump” Congress which barred them. The Evening Post, Times, and World supported Johnson’s329 veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, while the Tribune wrung56 its hands over such journalistic depravity.
There was some justification57 in the objection of Harper’s Weekly that the Post was too “optimistic.” Bryant appealed to the South to be magnanimous to the negro, and to set to work to educate him and make him the white man’s equal. He was sure that “with their healthy native constitution, their long training to labor58, their quick imitative faculties59, their new motives60 to enterprise, the freedmen will grow into a most useful class.” The Post underrated the enormous difficulties of the racial problem at the South. But its course was wisdom and humanity itself when compared with that of the Congressional extremists who insisted upon confiscation61 and disfranchisement. The Tribune, following these extremists, called the Post and Times “copperhead,” an epithet62 which came with ill grace from a paper with the Tribune’s war record. Greeley made an able defense63 of his policy in an address in Richmond in May, 1867, but the Tribune tended in the hands of his lieutenants64 to be more radical than Greeley himself.
In supporting Johnson, all the moderates found their chief enemy in Johnson himself. When he took the oath of office as Vice-President the authentic65 reports of his intoxication66 had caused the Evening Post to demand that he either resign or formally apologize to the nation. A year later, when he made an abusive speech saying that his opponents Sumner and Stevens had tried “to incite67 assassination,” the journal again called for an apology to the people. The Post supported the Civil Rights bill of 1866, guaranteeing the negro equality before the law with the whites. When Johnson vetoed it, Bryant wrote in a hitherto unpublished letter to his daughter:
The general feeling in favor of that bill is exceedingly strong, and the President probably did not know what he was doing when he returned it to Congress. He has been very silent since, as if the check of passing the bill notwithstanding his objections had stunned68 him. Mr. Bancroft says that he must have got some small lawyer to write his veto message, and Gen. Dix thinks that330 the trouble at Washington lessens69 the eligibility70 of the President for a second term of office. So you see that those who supported Johnson’s first veto fall off now. Poor Raymond seemed in great perplexity to know which way to turn. He supported the veto, but his paper commended it but faintly and admitted that something ought to be done from the standpoint of the rights of American citizenship71 when denied by the States.
When President Johnson removed the Governor of Louisiana that summer, the Evening Post condemned his act as unconstitutional. It was outraged72 by his dismissal of officeholders to influence the Congressional elections of 1866. His “swing around the circle,” the famous speaking tour to Chicago and back in the early fall of 1866, in which he lost all sense of dignity, talked of hanging Thad Stevens, and abused his opponents as “foul whelps of sin,” completely disgusted the Post. “It is a melancholy73 reflection,” it said, “to those who have found it their duty to support that policy [Johnson’s], that their most damaging opponent is the President, and that he makes a judicious74 course so hateful to the people that no argument is listened to....” It marveled at his skill “to do the wrong thing at the wrong time, to displease75 everybody, and to delay that which everybody would be glad to have over.” Moreover, as news arrived of widespread outrages76 against the negroes in the South, the Post’s attitude toward that section grew less gentle.
Ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, the Evening Post urged the South in the summer of 1866; it is the only way to hasten sane77 reconstruction. When the Southerners, already denying the negroes their due place at the polls and in the courts, deliberately78 rejected the amendment, it was ready to give them a stiffer dose. In February, 1867, it pronounced in favor of the great Reconstruction Act, which divided the ten Southern States into five military districts, and undertook to guarantee the negro’s rights by force. That is, the abuses perpetrated made it swing toward the Congressional standpoint—just as general Northern sentiment swung.
But when Congress determined79 to impeach3 President331 Johnson, the protest of the Evening Post was as instant as that of the Times or Sun. The principal charges were based upon the President’s alleged80 violations81 of the Tenure82 of Office Act, which prohibited him from dismissing civil officers without the consent of the Senate. When this Act was passed in July, 1867, the Post had called it a silly and mischievous83 attempt to make the President as powerless as the Mayor of New York, and had regarded it as unconstitutional. The early talk of impeachment it rebuked84 as threatening “a Mexican madness.” Naturally, then, when Johnson defied Congress by dismissing Secretary Stanton without consulting the Senate, the editors took the view that his intention was merely to bring the act before the courts, and that he should not be impeached85 unless he persisted in further dismissals after the Supreme86 Court had decided87 against him. They had already written (Dec. 2) that the impeachment talk did not carry with it the public sense of justice, without which it must recoil88 upon the heads of its promoters, and that Congress had enough useful constructive89 work to do to keep it busy.
When impeachment was actually voted, the Post’s comment was sorrowful rather than angry. “It is a quarrel in which there is really no very great substance,” it said. “It is one that might easily have been avoided, and may be easily brought to an end.”
This was the view of the Sun, which had just passed under the control of Dana, and which declared the impeachment “far too serious an undertaking90 for the facts and evidence in the case.” It was likewise the opinion of the Times, which asked: “Must the President be punished for maintaining the authority of the Constitution against an invalid91 law?” The position of the World had its humorous aspects. So long as it had considered Johnson a Republican, it had found no abuse of him too violent. Even in June, 1865, it had called him “a drunken boor,” “an insolent92, vulgar, low-bred brute,” and a man “not so respectable as Caligula’s horse.” Now, telling its readers that Congress was attempting to remove the332 President “in the personal interest of Edwin M. Stanton,” it could not be sufficiently93 impassioned in his defense. Mayor Hoffman voiced the same Democratic sentiment in saying that the impeachers of Johnson and the assassins of Lincoln would be equally infamous94 in history.
But the joy of the Tribune was unbounded, and in its references to the President it ran the gamut95 of denunciation, from “the Great Accidency” and “this bold, bad, malignant96 man” to “traitor.” Its peroration97 of one ringing column editorial is a gem98 of its kind: “He is an aching tooth in the national jaw99, a screeching100 infant in a crowded lecture room; and there can be no peace nor comfort until he is out.” The Nation, originally opposed to impeachment, now approved it with only less gusto. Every one thought Johnson either a fool or a knave101, its editor wrote, and his disappearance102 from the national stage would be a heartfelt relief to all. Harper’s Weekly, assailing103 Johnson for treachery to the party, hoped that he would sink fast and forever into oblivion.
A contribution to calmness in the first moment of excitement was made by the Evening Post in an editorial entitled “What the People Think.” There was no sustained perturbation, it believed; that sensitive barometer104, the gold market, had quickly become as steady as ever. There was even a feeling of relief. Thinking of the solemnity of the constitutional process of impeachment, men were glad that the vindictive105 fight between the President and Congress “is now carried out of the political arena106 and into a higher place.” The general public, including many Democrats107, held that the President had acted wrongly, even if not in a degree deserving impeachment. But every one was saying that there must be no violence, and the trial must be quick, while there was an equally universal hope that, whatever its outcome, Congress would emerge with its fury vented108 and in a more reasonable state of mind.
At the outset the Evening Post and the Times were irritated by two assertions of the anti-Johnson radicals. The first was that the President might and should be333 suspended from office pending109 the outcome of the trial. Not only was there no constitutional warrant for such action, wrote Bryant, but the question had been discussed in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and it had voted that Congress should have no such power of suspension. The Tribune held also that if the Senate, sitting as a High Court upon the President’s disobedience to the Tenure of Office Act, declared the act unconstitutional, then its decision became forever binding110. The Supreme Court would have no authority to pass upon the constitutionality of the act, and if it presumed to do so and to differ from the High Court, Congress would be justified111 in impeaching112 or removing the judges. This was too much for the Nation as well as the Evening Post, and Godkin promptly113 demolished114 the assertion. It should be said that Greeley at this time was absent in the West, and the Tribune was under the charge of John Russell Young, whose harshness Greeley later disapproved115.
On Feb. 27, three days after the impeachment, the Evening Post declared that “the general impression is that the case is essentially116 prejudged, and that Mr. Johnson will be removed by the Senate.” This was the opinion of all the city’s organs, from the radical Nation on the one side to the World on the other. The World, in fact, made an appeal for a fund of $10,000,000, with which to bribe117 those Senators who could hardly hope for re?lection anyhow; and while this was a bit of humor—the Tribune alone took it seriously—its point lay in the World’s conviction that the Republican Senators were all so prejudiced that only millions could win over a few of them. Like the Nation, the Post devoted118 an editorial to a scrutiny119 of the qualifications of Benjamin Wade, who as President pro5 tem. of the Senate would succeed Johnson. Bryant admitted Wade’s honesty, courage, and frankness, but regretted that in impetuosity, narrowness, and prejudice he would be too much like the man he replaced. His manners, too, must be mended, for he recalled a Scotch120 lady’s remark: “Our Jock sweers awfu’, but nae doot it’s a great set-off to conversation.”
334 As the trial progressed the Evening Post was gratified to find that the case was much less nearly prejudged than it had supposed. Disappointed by the lack of eloquence121 on both sides, it was pleased by the efficiency of Evarts, Stanbery, and others of the President’s counsel in displaying the strength of their case. They made it plain that Johnson’s intention in dismissing Stanton had not been to defy Congress and the law wantonly, but to obtain a judicial122 test of the Tenure of Office Act. They showed also that some anti-Johnson Senators had, while the Act was pending, expounded123 the view that it did not protect men held over from Lincoln’s Cabinet, like Stanton. The Post on April 22 credited the Senate with having dealt fairly with the accused and having admitted all the evidence in his favor.
The breakdown124 of the case against Johnson was gall125 and wormwood to the more bitter newspaper partisans126 of Congress. Theodore Tilton’s Independent read Chief Justice Chase, who impartially127 presided over the trial, out of the party. The Tribune was trembling for “the very existence of the government.” Never noted128 for gentleness of retort, it now accused Horatio Seymour of “gigantic, deliberate, atrocious lies”; the Herald of “falsehoods”; the World of “dodges and prevarications”; and the Times and Post again of being “copperhead.” The Times remonstrated129. Pointing out that Greeley was to preside at the Dickens dinner, as the representative of the American press, it said that he should remember that it was not in the dignity of a gentleman to use the word “liar.” Greeley replied that the truth was not a question of taste, but of flat morality, and that he would never be mealy-mouthed in its defense.
The seven Republican Senators who finally determined to vote against conviction were Fessenden, Lyman Trumbull, Henderson, Fowler, Van Winkle, Grimes, and Ross. It is the belief of all later historians that their courageous130 and just action is one of the finest episodes of the sordid131 reconstruction period. But a storm of anger broke upon335 them in Washington. It was on May 16 that the voting began. Four days earlier the Tribune, flying into a panic, declared that a hundred men had been under pay in Washington since the trial began to cry down impeachment and bet against conviction. It accused Lyman Trumbull of being to blame, and insinuated132 that his motives were venal133: “but a few weeks ago he was paid $5,000 for arguing the constitutionality of the Reconstruction laws.... Republicans ask to-night what the guerdon is for defending the President in the impeachment trial.” Let President Johnson, the incarnation of Treason and Slavery, be acquitted134, it added, and he becomes King; as yet he could be removed by law, but “your next attempt will be a revolution.” Next day, May 13, the Tribune headed an editorial attack upon Senator Grimes, who had defended Johnson, “Judas’s Thirty Reasons,” and concluded: “We have had Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jefferson Davis, and now we have James W. Grimes!” It categorically accused Senator Fowler of accepting a bribe, and it called Henderson and Ross suspect.
Perhaps the best retort was that of the Times, in an editorial debating the question who was the most colossal135 criminal of the century, and concluding that Senator Ross closely resembled Sennacherib. But a serious answer was necessary, and a dozen indignant journals, including the Nation and Harper’s Weekly, replied to this temporarily misguided oracle136 of a half-million readers. The Post’s editorial of May 13 was headed, “Coercing a Court”; and in it and an editorial of the next day it graphically137 described the pressure brought to bear upon the independent Senators, and condemned the attacks against them as undermining both the impartiality138 of judicial tribunals, and the principle that an accused man shall be believed innocent until proved guilty. It anticipated the verdict of history:
With whom is the sober second thought of the people most likely to agree—with the Tribune and Gen. Butler, or with such336 men as Trumbull, Grimes, Fessenden, and Henderson? It is plain that these gentlemen perform a duty in many ways painful to themselves; they are driven reluctantly to act in opposition139 to their own wishes; their verdict is given in favor of a man whom they consider unwise, and whose occupancy of the Presidential chair they believe has brought evils upon the country. Is it not honorable to them that their sense of justice and duty impels140 them to disappoint the demands of their party?
A scene of eager excitement and tension presented itself outside the office of every evening newspaper in New York on May 16, crowds packing the space before the bulletin boards. The vote was thirty-five for conviction and nineteen for acquittal, or one less than the number needed to depose141 the President. The Evening Post was outraged by the fact that the first vote was taken on the eleventh impeachment article, that being considered the strongest and the impeachment managers fearing the moral effect of a defeat on the weak early articles; and by the Senate’s immediate142 adjournment143 for ten days, which the Post believed a maneuver144 to permit more pressure to be brought upon the seven independent Senators. “The verdict of acquittal gives general satisfaction,” it said; “it is felt that a conviction, under the circumstances, would have had no moral force, and would only have injured the party....” Like every other decent organ, it condemned as “disgraceful” Senator Wade’s vote against Johnson and in favor of his own elevation145 to the Presidency146, cast at a time when he and others believed that a single ballot would sway the issue. For that act the public never quite forgave Wade.
The Times, Herald, and World equally rejoiced in the acquittal, and the Sun accepted it with a milder approval. The Nation found “several reasons” for regretting it, and the Tribune was inconsolable. But the anger of the radicals was more intense than long-lived. In 1884 one of the editors of the Evening Post, Horace White, was attending the Chicago Convention which nominated337 Blaine. The name of ex-Senator Henderson was reported for the permanent chairmanship. “The assembled multitude,” wrote White, “knew at once the significance of the nomination147, and gave cheer after cheer of applause and approval. It was the sign that all was forgiven on both sides.”
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
reconstruction
|
|
| n.重建，再现，复原 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
impeachment
|
|
| n.弹劾；控告；怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
impeach
|
|
| v.弹劾；检举 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
metropolitan
|
|
| adj.大城市的，大都会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
herald
|
|
| vt.预示...的来临，预告，宣布，欢迎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
radical
|
|
| n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
fowl
|
|
| n.家禽，鸡，禽肉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
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： |
|
|
|
|
13
arraignment
|
|
| n.提问，传讯，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
leniency
|
|
| n.宽大（不严厉） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
obituary
|
|
| n.讣告，死亡公告；adj.死亡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
postponed
|
|
| vt.& vi.延期，缓办，（使）延迟vt.把…放在次要地位；[语]把…放在后面（或句尾）vi.（疟疾等）延缓发作（或复发） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
tranquillity
|
|
| n. 平静, 安静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
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： |
|
|
|
|
21
serene
|
|
| adj. 安详的，宁静的，平静的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
repose
|
|
| v.(使)休息；n.安息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
contrived
|
|
| adj.不自然的，做作的；虚构的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
resentments
|
|
| （因受虐待而）愤恨，不满，怨恨( resentment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
clemency
|
|
| n.温和，仁慈，宽厚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
insanity
|
|
| n.疯狂，精神错乱；极端的愚蠢，荒唐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
assassination
|
|
| n.暗杀；暗杀事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
instigated
|
|
| v.使（某事物）开始或发生，鼓动( instigate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
feuds
|
|
| n.长期不和，世仇( feud的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
imbibe
|
|
| v.喝，饮；吸入，吸收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
reconciliation
|
|
| n.和解，和谐，一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
vehemently
|
|
| adv. 热烈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
espoused
|
|
| v.（决定）支持，拥护（目标、主张等）( espouse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
kaleidoscopic
|
|
| adj.千变万化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
proscription
|
|
| n.禁止，剥夺权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
annul
|
|
| v.宣告…无效，取消，废止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
repudiate
|
|
| v.拒绝，拒付，拒绝履行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
franchise
|
|
| n.特许，特权，专营权，特许权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
ratify
|
|
| v.批准，认可，追认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
radicals
|
|
| n.激进分子( radical的名词复数 )；根基；基本原理；[数学]根数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
wade
|
|
| v.跋涉，涉水；n.跋涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
illiterate
|
|
| adj.文盲的；无知的；n.文盲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
probationary
|
|
| 试用的，缓刑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
ballot
|
|
| n.（不记名）投票，投票总数，投票权；vi.投票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
suffrage
|
|
| n.投票，选举权，参政权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
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： |
|
|
|
|
56
wrung
|
|
| 绞( wring的过去式和过去分词 )； 握紧（尤指别人的手）； 把（湿衣服）拧干； 绞掉（水） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
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： |
|
|
|
|
59
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
confiscation
|
|
| n. 没收, 充公, 征收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
lieutenants
|
|
| n.陆军中尉( lieutenant的名词复数 )；副职官员；空军；仅低于…官阶的官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
intoxication
|
|
| n.wild excitement;drunkenness；poisoning | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
incite
|
|
| v.引起，激动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
stunned
|
|
| adj. 震惊的，惊讶的 动词stun的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
lessens
|
|
| 变少( lessen的第三人称单数 )； 减少（某事物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
eligibility
|
|
| n.合格，资格 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
outraged
|
|
| a.震惊的，义愤填膺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
displease
|
|
| vt.使不高兴，惹怒；n.不悦，不满，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
sane
|
|
| adj.心智健全的，神志清醒的，明智的，稳健的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
tenure
|
|
| n.终身职位；任期；(土地)保有权，保有期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
rebuked
|
|
| 责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
impeached
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的过去式和过去分词 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
recoil
|
|
| vi.退却，退缩，畏缩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
constructive
|
|
| adj.建设的，建设性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
undertaking
|
|
| n.保证，许诺，事业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
invalid
|
|
| n.病人，伤残人；adj.有病的，伤残的；无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
insolent
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，无理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
gamut
|
|
| n.全音阶，(一领域的)全部知识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
peroration
|
|
| n.（演说等之）结论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
gem
|
|
| n.宝石，珠宝；受爱戴的人 [同]jewel | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
jaw
|
|
| n.颚，颌，说教，流言蜚语；v.喋喋不休，教训 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
screeching
|
|
| v.发出尖叫声( screech的现在分词 )；发出粗而刺耳的声音；高叫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
knave
|
|
| n.流氓；（纸牌中的）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
disappearance
|
|
| n.消失，消散，失踪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
assailing
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的现在分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
barometer
|
|
| n.气压表，睛雨表，反应指标 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
vindictive
|
|
| adj.有报仇心的，怀恨的，惩罚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
arena
|
|
| n.竞技场，运动场所；竞争场所，舞台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
vented
|
|
| 表达，发泄（感情，尤指愤怒）( vent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
pending
|
|
| prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
impeaching
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的现在分词 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
113
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
demolished
|
|
| v.摧毁( demolish的过去式和过去分词 )；推翻；拆毁（尤指大建筑物）；吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
disapproved
|
|
| v.不赞成( disapprove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
bribe
|
|
| n.贿赂；v.向…行贿，买通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
scrutiny
|
|
| n.详细检查，仔细观察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
scotch
|
|
| n.伤口，刻痕；苏格兰威士忌酒；v.粉碎，消灭，阻止；adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
breakdown
|
|
| n.垮，衰竭；损坏，故障，倒塌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
gall
|
|
| v.使烦恼，使焦躁，难堪；n.磨难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
partisans
|
|
| 游击队员( partisan的名词复数 )； 党人； 党羽； 帮伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
impartially
|
|
| adv.公平地，无私地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
remonstrated
|
|
| v.抗议( remonstrate的过去式和过去分词 )；告诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
courageous
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，有胆量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
sordid
|
|
| adj.肮脏的，不干净的，卑鄙的，暗淡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
insinuated
|
|
| v.暗示( insinuate的过去式和过去分词 )；巧妙或迂回地潜入；（使）缓慢进入；慢慢伸入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
venal
|
|
| adj.唯利是图的，贪脏枉法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
colossal
|
|
| adj.异常的，庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
oracle
|
|
| n.神谕，神谕处，预言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
graphically
|
|
| adv.通过图表；生动地，轮廓分明地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
impartiality
|
|
| n. 公平, 无私, 不偏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
impels
|
|
| v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
depose
|
|
| vt.免职；宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
adjournment
|
|
| 休会； 延期； 休会期； 休庭期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
maneuver
|
|
| n.策略[pl.]演习；v.(巧妙)控制；用策略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
presidency
|
|
| n.总统(校长，总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |