Final answer:
In historical context, the national government often strengthens in response to state crises when states cannot manage effectively, prompting federal intervention to maintain stability and order.
Step-by-step explanation:
In response to the states' crisis management, the strength of the national government has historically fluctuated. The situation often depended on the nature of the crisis and the capacity of the states to cope. In scenarios where states were effective at managing a crisis, the power of the national government may not have changed significantly, and could have even appeared weakened, as states operated independently with success. However, in instances where states struggled, typically the national government's strength would grow as it intervened to provide support or impose measures aimed at addressing the issues, reflecting the principles of federalism.
Historical patterns suggest that during times of national crises, such as economic downturns or security threats, there often is a call for a stronger federal government to enact policies that individual states may not have the capability to implement alone. For example, the Articles of Confederation limited federal power, but after Shays' Rebellion and other events, the need for a more potent national governing body became apparent, leading to the Constitution which provided a framework for a stronger central authority. Moreover, the national government has acted to protect the nation, such as its response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In conclusion, while states have certain powers, the national government often grows in strength when states are unable to handle crises effectively, necessitating federal intervention to provide stability and maintain order.