Do the Federalist Papers argue for one World Government?

I must sadly admit that I have never read the The Federalist Papers before now. My high school, college and master's work were all bereft of any significant engagement with the American political landscape and history. Yet to my credit, I seek to correct this deficiency. I have completed the first 22 essays so far. What strikes me most is that every argument proposed by Madison, Hamilton and Jay could be used to argue in favor of one world government. Take for instance the idea that a confederacy lacks power to restrain a wayward state and so the state or states with the most force will always rise to the top, whether or not it is healthy and in the best interest of the others. The same could be argued for the international scene, a confederacy, the United Nations is essentially a weak confederacy, lacks any power aside from what the individual nations give to it and to date, it hasn't successfully restrained any aggression by any nation against another. Why because, like the early American confederacy it lacked real authority and power to tax and enforce its decisions. So, the most powerful nation has risen to the foreground. And as an American citizen, I am thankful for our ascendancy, for it could just as easily have been Russia or China or Germany which had taken this place, had circumstances been different.



Now given all of this, it would be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution has been so successful in American political life, and since the arguments of Madison, et al. were persuasive enough to convince our forefathers, then as a world people we could equally share in "progress" by working towards a single world government which is powerful enough to enforce its laws and decrees, to draw from the best and the brightest of the world for its management (instead of from a strictly local or national geographic boundary), and had the power to tax and ensure financial stability. These are the very arguments made in the Federalist Papers, yet what is wrong with these arguments?

On the surface, they seem wise, but underlying them all is the reality that absolute power corrupts and those in power will always seek to enlarge their power base while simultaneously seeking to quell any dissent. Furthermore, there is a lack of acknowledgement of the sinful nature of humanity and that the will of the majority isn't always right, just or true. Then there is also the fact that Christ alone is to be our head and in a pluralistic, world government, religion would, by necessity, be forced to the background in order for the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. to be able to serve and govern together. This would have the effect of continuing the secularization of the nations and the world. Furthermore, what is in our best interest and a local nation may not be in the best interest of the world and so our people may suffer greatly for another people to not suffer.

True, the same argument or injustice could be leveled against the present system, to which I would say, so why change one problem for another. But that aside, I am surprised to see the commonalities between American politics in the 1780's and International Politics in the 2000's.

Following are two excerpts from the Federalist which will serve to illustrate my points. Many more could be taken, but I will leave it to the reader to read for themselves and draw there own conclusions.

Essay #3 by Jay - "when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under national government - especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us." (pg. 10)

Essay #9 by Hamilton - "'This form of government [a confederate republic] is a convention by which several small states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, til they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body. A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.'" (pg. 39)

He goes on to show how any 'popular insurrection' can be defeated by the other member states coming to the aid of the impoverished member. This sounds strangely similar to the scene in Revelation where all the nations gather together against Israel at the battle of Armageddon. Who the Israel is and the "confederate republic" remains to be seen, although I have my suspicions that it will have something to do with a world attach on Christianity and the Body of Christ.

In conclusion, beware the ones who seek to take your freedom under the pretense of safety or progress.

Note: All page numbers are from the Phoenix Press edition edited by William Brock.
...Read more