government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union. Such a government, while it would give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our liberties at home.
THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES
Philadelphia newspapers printed a great volume of Federalist and Antifederalist literature. Indeed, long after the Quaker state ratified the Constitution, pieces composed in the main by Pennsylvanians were reprinted in scores of newspapers throughout the country. A large selection of this literature can be found in John B. McMaster and Frederick D. Stone (eds.), Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution ( Lancaster, 1888). The longest and most comprehensive series of these essays, twenty-four in number, under the pseudonym "CENTINEL," appeared in the [ Philadelphia] I ndependent Gazetteer between October 5, 1787 and November 24,1788.
Some historians believe that most of the "Centinel" letters were composed by Samuel Bryan (the son of George Bryan), and several (of the shorter selections) by Eleazer Oswald, owner of the Independent Gazetteer. See, for example, McMaster and Stone, pp. 6-7n., and Robert L. Brunhouse, The Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776-1790( Harrisburg, 1942), p. 204. But a recent study by Charles Page Smith, James Wilson, Founding Father (Chapel Hill, 1956), wisely refrains from making this identification, even though Smith's account "is taken primarily from McMaster and Stone."
The particular selection reprinted here is from the eleventh letter of "Centinel," which appeared in the Independent Gazetteer on January 16, 1788, and may be found in McMaster and Stone, pp. 634-37. Like the author of Antifederalist No. 5, "Centinel" declared that the Federalist tilted at windmills.
The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the glowing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness. To avoid the possible and transitory evils of one extreme, it is seduced into the certain and permanent misery necessarily attendant on the other. A state of anarchy from its very nature can never be of long continuance; the greater its violence the shorter the duration. Order and security are immediately sought by the distracted people beneath the shelter of equal laws and the salutary restraints of regular government; and if this be not attainable, absolute power is assumed by the one, or a few, who shall be the most enterprising and successful. If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting the new Constitution, it would be infi-