If they couldn't, then the ratifications could not legally be accepted. It's a common practice - one side makes an offer, the other parties either accept the terms or counter with changes. Three states choose to do so, among them New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.
We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations ... having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known
In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact [an agreement between parties; a covenant or contract], cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates [public civil officers invested with authority] therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable [accountable, responsible] to them.
3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...
Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents [this document, under these terms and conditions], assent to, and ratify the said Constitution.
These were not proposed amendments - those were noted after this ratification. Their ratification was accepted by all parties to the Constitutuon. New York's ratification is similarly constructed, as is that of Virginia.
Show me, don't tell me. I am not saying you are wrong, but just you saying so doesn't make it so. Neither does the Virginia legislature saying so necessarily make it so. As for the parsing of the document, I am familiar with its stipulations. What I would like to see is something which shows what legal force these statements had or didn't have. You say that the ratification couldn't be accepted. I am just saying that that hasn't been shown. For starters, if we could see the text of the Virginia debate on the subject of the language used in their ratification, it would be helpful for this discussion, otherwise we are just going back and forth with "I think X" and "I think Z".
Hold on, there! Common practice? What historical precedents would there have been for what you are suggesting happened here? These people were ratifying a Constitution, not haggling over a used car.
Article VII of the Constitution provided state ratifying conventions with the option to ratify the Constitution as written. And each of the states did ratify the Constitution as written.
Do you see the term "counter-offer" in any of the states' ratification documents? Did you know how hard Mr. Madison worked to make sure that the state conventions framed their ratification proposals for bills of rights as "recommendations" rather than qualifications?
According to my references, this interpretation is inaccurate:
The phrase "by these presents" is used to refer to the document or instrument in which the phrase occurs.
The way I read that, by these presents simply means "via this document." The same way you say "with this ring I thee wed", you say "by these presents, we assent." There is nothing inherent to that phrase which implies anything conditional. In fact, as I already said, they voted against a conditional ratification, choosing rather to pass resolutions which were no more than recommendations and statements of their disposition.
Once again, I have provided evidence to support my argument. When will you bother to do the same? Don't tell me what you think. Show me what an expert or authoritative reference says. Then we can talk.