The exception proves the rule. That is certainly the case with something as complicated as the American system of federalism and the concept of states\u2019 rights. The basic rule is that the federal government has been a much better protector of human and economic rights than the states. This contention was brought to light once again by the remarkable PBS documentary, Freedom Riders<\/a>. First the rule, then the exception.<\/p>\n <\/a>At the beginning of the film, historian Raymond Arsenault succinctly states the goal of the Riders. \u201cThe Freedom Rides of 1961 had a simple but daring plan: The Congress of Racial Equality came up with the idea to put blacks and whites in small groups on commercial buses, and they would deliberately violate the segregation laws of the Deep South.\u201d<\/p>\n Slavery has been called America\u2019s original sin. <\/a>As originally written, Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution stated<\/a>:<\/p>\n Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The three-fifths clause was actually a concession by both Southern and Northern states. Virginia, North Carolina, and other states south of the Potomac wanted slaves to count as full persons in order to increase their population and thus give them greater representation in the House of Representatives. Northerners felt that if slaves couldn\u2019t vote that they shouldn\u2019t be counted for the purpose of apportionment. The three-fifths compromise was acceptable to both sides.<\/p>\n Southerners did not see slavery as an egregious violation of human rights. Rather, they saw it is an essential element in the production of cotton and tobacco, the two crops that were America\u2019s greatest exports at the time of the Constitution.<\/p>\n To Abolitionists, the Civil War was fought over the existence of slavery. To Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln, the war was fought because a suitable compromise could not be reached with southern states to prevent the expansion of slavery. A peaceful accord could not be reached. War ensued, and when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia the North had presumably won.<\/p>\n