Christian Thomas said some interesting things about that book AND how to tackle it.  His suggestions might be of interest:

Some reviewers challenge the notion that the US was ever a Democracy, however, the reader could be viewing the Federalist Papers from the perspective of modern times, and that is a fallacy in reviewing this work, but fortunately it’s an instructive fallacy.

The issue with the Federalist Papers is that although it is the leading arguments for the creation of a more centralized government (to replace the Articles of Confederation which seemed inpractible), not all of these arguments were adopted in the Constitution, and some that were did not survive very long. As a result, you may get the wrong impression that the Federalist Papers=the Constitution. Remember, Hamilton’s party, the Federalists, did not survive much longer after the defeat of Adams by Jefferson in the 1800 election. The populism of Jefferson and Madison were the ultimate winners *at the time*.

And my *at the time* comment is important. Nowadays the federal government of the US holds a superior and decisive position in the governing of its people; this has not always been the case. In the early-to-mid 19th century, federal power was severely limited when it came to internal affairs; most of the government was conducted at the local level, with some county and state control thrown in where applicable. So *at the time*, the fact that the Senate had 2 members from each state (and appointed by the state legislature) regardless of population was *not* a measure that was anti-democratic in purpose. Democracy existed because the government was predominantly local and the people were predominantly involved in its affairs.

Thus my contention; now for the suggestion: if your project is strictly to research the creation of the US Constitution, than the Federalist Papers by themselves are fine. If, however, you are more interested in how the Constitution affected American society at that time, I would recommend that you start by reading de Tocqueville’s "Democracy in America", and working backwards. The immediate results of the Constitution are best expressed in de Tocqueville (he toured the United States and published his work in Europe within 50 years of the ratification) because its not the causes of the Constitution he is discussing, but its effects. After you have completed Democracy in America, then you’ll be able to approach the Federalist (and of course the Anti-Federalist) Papers with the understanding of what worked, what didn’t, and maybe what we need to work again for.

The Federalist Papers are a bit heavy, but they’re readable.

They are wonderful reading, and of course some background is always helpful. It also wouldn’t hurt to do some background reading on the fellows who engineered the Constitution. Read Madison’s letters about the inefficacy of the Articles, and then study his notes on the Constitutional Convention. There are some little treasures among his notes. It will also show you how the Constitution formed out of the Virginia Plan, and the reasoning each member applied to the process that ultimately produced the Constitution.

Also remember that one of the huge issues of the time was representation of States in the federal congress. Smaller states desired a set number of representatives per state (as in the two-per-state scheme in the Senate), and larger states wanted representation in proportion to size (as in the House, more seats for more populous states). The result was the Connecticut Compromise, resulting in the bicameral Congress whose features were pleasing to both large and small states.