Antifederalist No. 6

THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES 



     One of largest series of Antifederalist essays was penned 
under the pseudonym "CENTINEL."  The Philadelphia Independent 
Gazetteer ran this 24 essay series between October 5, 1787 and 
November 24, 1788. 
     Some historians feel most of the "Centinel" letters were 
written by Samuel Bryan, and a few by Eleazer Oswald, owner of 
the Independent Gazetteer.  A more recent study by Charles Page 
Smith, James Wilson, Founding Father (Chapel Hill, 1956), 
refrains from making such theory 
     This selection is from the eleventh letter of "Centinel," 
appearing in the Independent Gazetteer on January 16, 1788. 


     The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the 
imagery of language in the growing 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 infinitely better to 
incur it, for even then there would be at least the chance of a 
good government rising out of licentiousness.  But to rush at 
once into despotism because there is a bare possibility of 
anarchy ensuing from the rejection, or from what is yet more 
visionary, the small delay that would be occasioned by a revision 
and correction of the proposed system of government is so 
superlatively weak, so fatally blind, that it is astonishing any 
person of common understanding should suffer such an imposition 
to have the least influence on his judgment; still more 
astonishing that so flimsy and deceptive a doctrine should make 
converts among the enlightened freemen of America, who have so 
long enjoyed the blessings of liberty.  But when I view among 
such converts men otherwise pre-eminent it raises a blush for the 
weakness of humanity that these, her brightest ornaments, should 
be so dimsighted to what is self-evident to most men, that such 
imbecility of judgment should appear where so much perfection was 
looked for. This ought to teach us to depend more on our own 
judgment and the nature of the case than upon the opinions of the 
greatest and best of men, who, from constitutional infirmities or 
particular situations, may sometimes view an object through a 
delusive medium; but the opinions of great men are more 
frequently the dictates of ambition or private interest. 
    The source of the apprehensions of this so much dreaded 
anarchy would upon investigation be found to arise from the 
artful suggestions of designing men, and not from a rational 
probability grounded on the actual state of affairs. The least 
reflection is sufficient to detect the fallacy to show that there 
is no one circumstance to justify the prediction of such an 
event.  On the contrary a short time will evince, to the utter 
dismay and confusion of the conspirators, that a perseverance in 
cramming down their scheme of power upon the freemen of this 
State [Pennsylvania] will inevitably produce an anarchy 
destructive of their darling domination, and may kindle a flame 
prejudicial to their safety.  They should be cautious not to 
trespass too far on the forbearance of freemen when wresting 
their dearest concerns, but prudently retreat from the gathering 
storm. 
    The other specter that has been raised to terrify and alarm 
the people out of the exercise of their judgment on this great 
occasion, is the dread of our splitting into separate 
confederacies or republics, that might become rival powers and 
consequently liable to mutual wars from the usual motives of 
contention.  This is an event still more improbable than the 
foregoing.  It is a presumption unwarranted, either by the 
situation of affairs, or the sentiments of the people; no 
disposition leading to it exists; the advocates of the new 
constitution seem to view such a separation with horror, and its 
opponents are strenuously contending for a confederation that 
shall embrace all America under its comprehensive and salutary 
protection. This hobgoblin appears to have sprung from the 
deranged brain of Publius, [The Federalist] a New York writer, 
who, mistaking sound for argument, has with Herculean labor 
accumulated myriads of unmeaning sentences, and mechanically 
endeavored to force conviction by a torrent of misplaced words.  
He might have spared his readers the fatigue of wading through 
his long-winded disquisitions on the direful effects of the 
contentions of inimical states, as totally inapplicable to the 
subject he was professedly treating; this writer has devoted much 
time, and wasted more paper in combating chimeras of his own 
creation. However, for the sake of argument, I will admit that 
the necessary consequence of rejecting or delaying the 
establishment of the new constitution would be the dissolution of 
the union, and the institution of even rival and inimical 
republics; yet ought such an apprehension, if well founded, to 
drive us into the fangs of despotism?  Infinitely preferable 
would be occasional wars to such an event.  The former, although 
a severe scourge, is transient in its continuance, and in its 
operation partial, but a small proportion of the community are 
exposed to its greatest horrors, and yet fewer experience its 
greatest evils; the latter is permanent and universal misery, 
without remission or exemption.  As passing clouds obscure for a 
time the splendor of the sun, so do wars interrupt the welfare of 
mankind; but despotism is a settled gloom that totally 
extinguishes happiness.  Not a ray of comfort can penetrate to 
cheer the dejected mind; the goad of power with unabating rigor 
insists upon the utmost exaction; like a merciless taskmaster, 
[it] is continually inflicting the lash, and is never satiated 
with the feast of unfeeling domination, or the most abject 
servility. 
    The celebrated Lord Kaims, whose disquisitions of human 
nature evidence extraordinary strength of judgment and depth of 
investigation, says that a continual civil war, which is the most 
destructive and horrible scene of human discord, is preferable to 
the uniformity of wretchedness and misery attendant upon 
despotism; of all possible evils, as I observed in my first 
number, this is the worst and the most to be dreaded. 
    I congratulate my fellow citizens that a good government, the 
greatest earthly blessing, may be so easily obtained, that our 
circumstances are so favorable, that nothing but the folly of the 
conspirators can produce anarchy or civil war, which would 
presently terminate in their destruction and the permanent 
harmony of the state, alone interrupted by their ambitious 
machinations. 
                          CENTINEL