I think its very dangerous to engage in speculations on what the framers intended. What matters is what they eventually agreed on. They probably didn't intend on anything, they just managed to come up with a compromise they could all live with for the time being, in other words, they postponed it until the indefinite future..

Constitutions, when applied to eras and situations long after those in which they were framed, often no longer have any relevance. But that's not why we have them. Their purpose is to provide inertia, to act as a flywheel, to ensure that changes are carefully considered and debated before they are instituted so that policy will evolve smoothly, not by fits and starts.

Trying to guess what our forefathers were thinking, what they really wanted to do, is sheer speculation, and fetishizes them. They were men just like us, and just as likely to get it wrong. And very often the law we object to now was a bitter controversy among them as well. We cannot appeal to their status and prestige to deal with a situation that had never arisen when they were negotiating and arguing. The law is what they agreed on, not necessarily what they wanted.

I am just as appalled as to how the filibuster has been abused as the next man, particularly the way the frequency and partisanship of abuse has increased lately, but if we are to get rid of it, it will have to wait for a time when neither side can benefit from keeping it, and when neither side has a memory of how well it served them. And it will have to wait for a time when one minority isn't dying to get their revenge by using it against their opponents. And as much as I loathe the filibuster, I really couldn't blame the current majority from using it to deadlock their opponents if their positions were reversed. The one thing Aaron Burr got right is that there are no longer any gentlemen in congress. But they are all still businessmen, lawyers and politicians.

The filibuster has evolved from a last-ditch defense against an intolerable perceived tyranny of the majority, to a convenient method to take hostage and extort a legislature from doing anything which might be objectionable to a minority. And we really can't blame the framers for that.