Article V Convention in 1910s over 17th Amendment

[The Mikado]

Let's say that the Senate remains intransigent and refuses to sign onto the 17th Amendment and direct election of Senators. The massive public movement leads to the calling of an Article V convention over the issue in 1912, for which each state legislature nominates delegates and which meets in 1913. Of course, once a convention is called, theoretically the entire document is up for grabs. Would there be major structural changes? Say, some new language dealing with the status of the Philippines and other US overseas territories, or some addressing of Jim Crow (with the Southern narrative at its post-Civil War high-point, could Jim Crow be enshrined in the Constitution?). Would the Constitution of 1913 remain like the Constitution of 1787 but including direct election of Senators, or would it be a fundamentally different document due to either Progressive reformers or Southern white supremacists?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe the 18th, 19th, and 20th Amendments would have been sent to the States sooner.  But it's doubtful anything truly radical would have been sent, and even if sent, that it would have gotten the requisite 36 States to ratify it.  The boogieman of a runaway convention is largely groundless.