Because the Federalists didn't want word to get out what they were up to until they had their ducks in a row.
Why did the Convention propose to replace the Articles of Confederation?
The "convention" did no such thing. Many protested that it was exceeding their authority. Some walked out because of it. The Federalists arriived with a variety of centralizing plans already drafted, because this was their opportunity to centralize the colonies into one consolidated government.
Why has it taken so long for us to stand at the abyss of tyranny? If the Constitution is responsible, why so long?
The southern states would argue it only took a short time. War broke out by 1861, but the hostilities, all a result of consolidation, were already brewing by the 1820s, just 30 years or so after ratification.
If you like the Confederacy, you must love the United Nations.
No, I'm not an internationalist. Far from it. Confederacies should be small, and republics even smaller. Just think, many thought the original 13 colonies were too big for one republic! A ratio of 30,000/1 representation was thought insufficient! Now it's 500,000/1!
My post of 28 May explained the Secrecy Rule in the words of the Framers. It was not for the reason you state.
On 29 May the Randolph/Virginia Plan was submitted, which itemized the deficiencies of the Articles the Convention needed to correct.
I didn’t think you could explain why, if the Constitution is so flawed, it has taken 200 years to stand at the edge of tyranny. I was right.
The Framers will get to the issues of proportional representation soon. But, it is good to see you support government acting on the individual, right?
Before spouting off, try educating yourself.