Do I have that about right?
I said nothing about it being illegal. What I was pointing out is that once you have a ConCon in session, there is no way it won't run far beyond any mandate it might have.
The original convention of the states was empaneled with the charge to make recommendations to change the Articles of Confederation to improve the way the government worked. Rather than do that, it rewrote it from scratch. IMO, what they came up with was a vast improvement over what had previously existed anywhere. Furthermore, as a confederation of States, they had the right and ability to alter or abolish the Fedgov charter and form a new compact between the States, which is what the Constitution is.
I would shudder to think what a modern day con-con would come up with. The list of the "Bill of Rights", will be a mile long and will include everything to the right to abortion on demand at taxpayer expense, to guaranteed housing.
You may disagree, but I think history is on my side with this.
Running beyond its' mandate to do what? The convention has no power to change the Constitution, only to propose amendments.
"I think history is on my side with this."
No, history is on the other side. There is an extensive record of colonial-era conventions and none of them did any of the things you fear.
P.S.
Don't be taken in by this propaganda from the progressive left. The delegates all either had permission in advance or requested and received permission from their state legislatures to produce a new constitution. Mark Levin documents this in his book.