I just wanted to correct one observation that was made (twice, I think) in
the discussions about Lincoln and the Constitution: that the U.S. Congress
met "rarely" in the 19th century, and therefore could sometimes be
overlooked or ignored as a source of policy.

"Rarely" probably means something like "only a few times a year" or
"occasionally but not often" to most people. Let me just point out that,
while not matching current "achievements" for being in session (the 101st
Congress was in session--1st plus 2nd--for 584 days, for example), the
Congresses of the 19th century ordinarily were in session for at least a
total of 150 days (1st plus 2nd session) and often somewhere between 200
and 400 days. The average increased markedly in the 20th century, though
some 19th-century Congresses--the 40th, for example, which was in session
for 618 days in 1867-69--met or exceeeded 20th-century averages.

I think "rarely" is the wrong term to use in this context. Maybe those who
used it were thinking of the Confederation Congress of the 1780s, which
met far less frequently than later Congresses, mainly because it was often
difficult to get a quorum together.

My figures come from a standard reference, the Congressional Quarterly's
Guide to Congress, appendix A.

Douglas Deal
Professor of History (on leave 2002-2003)
State University of New York at Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
[log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html