" --- How is this harmony to be obtained? only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority. -- -- or lastly let no regulation of trade adopted by Congress be in force untill it shall have been ratified by a certain proportion of the States. -- "
The context of his statement is that the states should obey the orders of this "reasonable majority".
Read further.. Its obvious he wants States to have a say in commerce 'regulation'. - And doesn't believe that [a] commerce clause [should] allow Congress to issue prohibitory 'Acts'.
Where does he say this?
It's the thrust of his general argument. You don't agree with that argument, so you're nitpicking the issue, as usual.
The problem that existed at the time was that each state was setting its own trade policy, and that diminished the effectiveness of any trade policy. He wanted there to be a national policy, that all the states would be bound to go along with. He was not saying that it should require a unanimous vote of the states in order to adopt such a policy.
Amendments require a three fourths majority.
Actually under the Articles of Confederation (which was in effect at the time of the letter) unanimity was required to make an amendment, but once the amendment would have been approved, it would not have required unanimity to pass a regulation of commerce.
While interesting, your comment is in effect just more nitpicking in order to avoid the real issue:
Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?
Not even close. The thrust of his argument was the need for more power, not less.
Perhaps you and some other constitution experts might find this interesting. A theory of state vs federal powers and overall government power (articles of Confederation vs. Constitution etc..). Comparisons are also made to the present day EU constitution and a brief theory on the Bill of Rights.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/europeanconstitution.htm