Now you're just being a boob. There was nothing two sided about it. States ratified the Constitution or they didn't, nothing was negotiated. The Constitutional Convention wasn't going to accept changes, go back and make them, and then present them again. The Constitution was there, accept it or not was the state's choice. And Virginia accepted it. Viginia ratified it, in toto, as passed by the convention. And in doing so they made the mistaken claim that they could resume powers granted to the government any time that they wanted to. And in that they were wrong. The Constitution does not allow for that, in any clause, in any section. Virginia, or any other state for that matter, could pad their ratification document with any misconception that they cared to, and some did. But the ratification documents do not trump the Constitution.
Hamilton wanted to reject the ratification. Madison convinced him that the terms stated were indeed not terms, as they were (pay attention now) inherent to the document itself.
It could not be more clear that the ratification is hinged on the terms stated. The powers that be had a responsibility to reject it if they felt they were inappropriate. Hamilton knew this. Hamilton knew that if he wanted the Constitution at all, he had to accept Virginia's compromise. Hamilton was overruled in New York and they inserted similar language. If he could get it, why is it that his modern-day apologists cannot?