Both were right. We don't need a new Constitution, but an amended one. Repeal of the 17th will restore the 10th.
An Article V Convention would allow the states to amend the U.S. Constitution without the approval of the federal government.
Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists believed the broader Constitutional power of the states would eventually be centralized in the federal government. Madison believed that the limits set forth in the Constitution through separation of powers would prevent that centralization of power.
Look at the influence that the federal government exerts over the personal lives of individual citizens today. For example, people would rather get a colonoscopy than get audited by the IRS.
States like Arizona are told to watch while their citizens are raped and murdered by Mexicans. Meanwhile, the citizens of Arizona are expected through federal taxation to pay for these Mexican’s healthcare and food.
Ask yourself who really had it right, Madison or Henry?
The Senate has been as complicit as any federal agency in the 20th Century. We can agree on the repealing the 17th Amendment.
However, I would focus more on the 16th Amendment which was exempted from Constitutional limits on direct taxation. The 16th Amendment funnels huge amounts of money out of the states to the federal government. And guess who gets to decide who gets all that money: the federal government; thus, the federal government can effectively bribe the states and local communities.