Except that clause was put there by i.e. G. Mason at the end of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, because they stated they want a new Constitution when the time comes, to the opposition of Madison, Hamilton and Washington. It was accepted as a compromise made in order to finally come up with a draft of the supreme document.
Mason and some others (Adams?) indeed campaigned in 1788 for an Art 5 Convention (to put in a Bill of Rights), but because Madison, Hamilton, Washington and some others wanted to avoid a Convention at all costs (since it would bring new Constitution and destroy the Federation), they started to advocate against that and convinced Mason to do it through a single amendment option multiple times.
sources: Madison in Federalist No.49 and in his letter to Turberville (Nov 2nd, 1788); Hamilton in Federalist No.85; Washington in his letter to Richard Peters (Sep 7th,1788).
Except that clause was put there by i.e. G. Mason at the end of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, because they stated they want a new Constitution when the time comes, to the opposition of Madison, Hamilton and Washington. It was accepted as a compromise made in order to finally come up with a draft of the supreme document.
Mason and some others (Adams?) indeed campaigned in 1788 for an Art 5 Convention (to put in a Bill of Rights), but because Madison, Hamilton, Washington and some others wanted to avoid a Convention at all costs (since it would bring new Constitution and destroy the Federation), they started to advocate against that and convinced Mason to do it through a single amendment option multiple times.
sources: Madison in Federalist No.49 and in his letter to Turberville (Nov 2nd, 1788); Hamilton in Federalist No.85; Washington in his letter to Richard Peters (Sep 7th,1788).
Very interesting. Worth waiting 7 months for :-) Thanks for taking the time, pede.