Final answer:
Southern states primarily supported the use of federal military force to enforce laws, particularly in matters related to sustaining slavery. This stance was contrary to their claimed dedication to states' rights, revealing a conditional approach to federal power based on protecting their interests in slavery.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of enforcing laws through federal military force, it was principally the southern states that supported the use of Federal power, especially when it was necessary to sustain the institution of slavery. This is evidenced by incidents such as the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, where the Federal government tried the resisters for treason under pressure from southerners, as in the Christiana incident. Southern support for the use of federal power was in direct contradiction to their promotion of states' rights, which was a stance primarily intended to protect slavery.
Historian William W. Freehling noted that the white southerners happily depended on federal intervention when it benefited the maintenance of slavery, an institution they referred to as the 'Peculiar Institution.' On the other hand, historian Vernon Burton observed that southerners expected the federal government to safeguard their property rights, even potentially impinging upon the free speech rights in the north. This utilization of federal authority by southerners indicates that their advocacy for states' rights was flexible and greatly influenced by their desire to preserve slavery.
During the lead-up to the Civil War, these competing interests and perspectives on federal versus state authority reached a climax. The election of Abraham Lincoln and his anti-slavery stance pushed the southern states to secede, ultimately confirming their willingness to uphold state sovereignty over federal unity whenever their system of slavery felt threatened. Post-Civil War, the balance of power shifted, affirming federal dominance and ending the practice of slavery.