This is a good answer, but I think "neutral" is a bit of a stretch. The 3/5ths clause, the allowing of Congress to outlaw slave importation in 1808 (Which inherently allows it up till then) and the requirement to return people to whom their labor is due are all examples of the constitution being less than neutral on the issue of slavery.
And of course at the time it was written and adopted, the vast majority of states were slave states.
The constitution appears to be designed to accommodate the wishes of slave states at the time it was ratified.
Be honest. The two hold-out States were, namely, Georgia and South Carolina.
Full disclosure: The reason I let you know that I recorded this was because of the schism between Douglass and the Garrisonians. Based on past comments you have made, I’m not sure you had known this took place. Garrison was an ardent Constitution attacker. Douglass was the exact opposite.
I’m particularly curious as to your take (as a Civil War enthusiast) about the 3/5ths compromise as a disability, rather than they way progressive historians pervert the issue and promote it as a huge boon to slavers. In short, you know my usual phrase - progressives are big fat liars.
With that being out there, I think what user Retain Mike said at post 14 is correct. Its pretty much the same thing that Douglass argued in the speech.
At the Convention, the Southern States wanted full representation for their slaves. In other words, the South wanted 5/5ths. Do you agree with this?