Final answer:
Amar views the Federalists as nationalists who cleverly used the label 'Federalist' to persuade people to ratify a strong central government. His use of analogies explains political strategies and clarifies debates, contributing to the persuasive power of the essay. Economic divides also influenced opinions on ratification among Americans.
Step-by-step explanation:
Amar's perspective on the ratification of the Constitution is that the Federalists, despite being essentially nationalists, skillfully adopted the Federalist label to garner support for a Constitution that established a strong central government. This strategy proved effective in swaying delegates to ratify. In 'America's Constitution: A Biography', the use of analogies serves to make complex historical and political concepts more accessible and relatable to readers. Amar's choice to use analogies likely helped convey the nuances of the debates and the strategic rhetoric employed by the framers of the Constitution.
For example, calling themselves Federalists despite pushing for a nationalist government can be viewed as an analogy to a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is not explicitly stated in the text but is a style of rhetoric that encapsulates the political maneuvering of the time. Likewise, the term Antifederalists can be compared to a misnomer, given many of its proponents were true federalists who believed in the importance of state sovereignty over a central authority. The use of such terms shaped public perception and influenced the debates surrounding the Constitution's ratification.
Economic factors also played a role, with urban Americans supporting the Constitution for its potential to foster commerce, whereas poorer rural citizens were more likely to oppose it, fearing it favored the interests of the wealthier classes. The Federalists had to navigate these complex social dynamics in their quest for ratification.