Final answer:
The federal government did not typically act quickly in response to union-led strikes. While they have sought injunctions, mediated disputes, and sometimes employed troops, historical events such as the Anthracite Coal Strike and the Pullman Strike show that fast action wasn't a common approach.
Step-by-step explanation:
The federal government has historically taken various actions in response to union-led strikes, but one thing it did not typically do is act quickly. While the government has sought injunctions, attempted to -mediate disputes, and on some occasions, brought in troops, there is evidence that quick action was not always a hallmark of its response. For instance, during the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902, President Roosevelt's intervention marked a departure from previous government inaction, suggesting that prior to this, the government may not have acted as swiftly in response to strikes.
Additionally, during significant union-led strikes such as the Pullman Strike, the government was seen using repressive legislation under the guise of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to secure a court order to end the strike, a process that also did not reflect quick action. The use of troops to intervene in strikes, such as in the Pullman Strike, indicates a willingness to employ force but not necessarily an indication of rapid response.