Amar on Federalist Number 10

Yale Law and College Professor Akhil R. Amar has written one of the definitive books on the origins of the Constitution entitled America's Constitution: A Biography. Amar was also an Ath speaker a half a year ago.

I found his bit about Federalist 10 to be very insightful. (Alas, it's not accessible online so you'll have to trust my faithful reproduction.)

Modern Americans of all stripes—lawyers, historians, political scientists, and general historians—have missed the central argument of these early Federalist essays. The Federalist No. 10 is taught everywhere, while the rest of the Publius’s early exposition goes unasigned and unappreciated. Bristling with insights, No. 10 indeed has something for everyone today—an explicit reference to property rights and class conflict, a celebration of demographic and religious diversity, a sophisticated account of interest groups and electoral dynamics, and a prophetic sketch of the federal government’s eventual role in protecting minority rights. But however interesting No. 10 may be to modern readers, scholars have shown this essay and its ideas had remarkably little impact on Madison’s contemporaries.

Amar, Akhil R. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005, 43.

He cites newspaper records from the era to probe the influence of The Federalist and concludes that

[t]he points most likely to persuade skeptics and fence-sitters needed to, and did, come earlier, in The Federalist Nos. 2 through 8, with further reinforcement from The Federalist essays immediately following No. 10. In 1787-1788, The Federalist Nos. 1-6 and 8-9 were reprinted more often than any of Publius’s other essays.

Amar, Akhil R. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005, 44.

Provided that the above is true, how can Professor Charles Kesler's comment (on p. ix of the introduction) that "Publius quickly became accepted as the best guide not only to how the framers had understood the Constitution when they wrote it, but also to how the people of the United States had understood the Constitution when they ratified it" (emphasis added) also be true?

Any thoughts?

(I trust this isn't a violation of the "no professors" rule as it was assigned to us. If it is, I'll promptly take it down.)