Not exactly correct. Neither the Constitution nor federal law specifically excluded blacks from citizenship. That had to wait for the infamous and wrongly decided Dred Scott decision. That decision, and the need to override state laws to the contrary, was why an amendment was needed, not a need to reverse previous constitutional provisions.
Prior to the Dred Scott decision, who was a citizen was left up to the States, except for those being naturalized, which power was given to Congress in the Constitution. In quite a few states at the time of the Revolution and for a good while thereafter, blacks were citizens, in some of them even having the franchise. One of those states being North Carolina.
In 1860 Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all had full citizenship, including the franchise, for free blacks.
(1) Congress restricted citizenship to “free white persons” - not just one time, but several times in the 18C and 19C to keep out foreigners who were not white.
The ideal of the Founders was to allow Europeans who sympathized with the republican principles of America to immigrate to the United States.
(2) In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, free blacks (a small fraction of the population) could vote in several Southern states (Kentucky and North Carolina, I believe), but this was reversed not long thereafter.
(3) Women also had the right to vote in New Jersey.
(4) The Founders didn’t ban gay marriage either. It was a thought that simply never occurred to them.
(5) You are correct that blacks were considered citizens of states like Massachusetts in New England, but their citizenship status wasn’t recognized by the other states, who didn’t consider blacks to be Americans.
(6) The Dred Scott decision:
“On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. . . .
It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else . . .
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery. . . . He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion. . . .
Another of the early laws of which we have spoken, is the first militia law, which was passed in 1792, at the first session of the second Congress. The language of this law is equally plain and significant.... It directs that every “free able-bodied white male citizen” shall be enrolled in the militia. The word white is evidently used to exclude the African race, and the word citizen to exclude unnaturalized foreigners; the latter forming no part of the sovereignty, owing it no allegiance, and therefore under no obligation to defend it. The African race, however, born in the country, did owe allegiance to the Government, whether they were slave or free; but it is repudiated, and rejected from the duties and obligations of citizenship in marked language.
The third act to which we have alluded is even still more decisive; it was passed as late as 1813, (2 Stat., 809) and it provides: “That from and after the termination of the war in which the United States are now engaged with Great Britain, it shall not be lawful to employ, on board of any public or private vessels of the United States, any person or persons except citizens of the United States, or persons of color, natives of the United States.”
Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States..”