Analysis: US has been divided before; understand why today is different
As we turn 250 years old, the dividing lines in the United States are becoming evident. Partisan and regional divisions now rival the country's most intense internal conflicts, with the exception of the Civil War.
Rising tensions between red and blue political coalitions are permeating virtually every aspect of American life, especially under the overwhelming pressure of Donald Trump's polarizing and norm-breaking presidency.
Even the celebration of this landmark anniversary divided the country into familiar antagonistic camps.
Internal conflict in a nation is a difficult concept to quantify, but several indicators - the increasing political divergences between states, Trump's incessant clashes with Democratic political leaders, the practically total disappearance of bipartisan cooperation in Congress and the increase in political violence - suggest that the US is at the higher end of this scale.
The United States has faced periods of heightened tension before and, with the exception of the Civil War, has always found ways to manage, if not necessarily resolve, its differences. However, several unique aspects now point to a growing and unpredictable divide.
A central factor among them is the role of Trump who, perhaps more than any of his predecessors, found it advantageous to stir up the country's latent disagreements.
"What's different this time is that there are not just fundamental divisions, but divisions that are being deliberately fomented by the nation's leader," said Donald Kettl, former director of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.
A rare point of unity in this deeply divided country is that most Americans, of both parties, expect our divisions to only deepen in the coming years.
The USA has already experienced periods of intense internal tension
There is no "golden age" of the American union, the closest exception is probably the decade of predominance of the Democratic-Republican Party after the War of 1812, a period that contemporaries called, with some exaggeration, the "Era of Good Feelings".
Regional, racial, and economic differences have been woven into the American flag since the beginning.
But these differences have proven much more difficult to contain at some times than others.
Nothing, of course, compares to the years surrounding the Civil War. Throughout the 1840s and 1950s, the country went through successive crises that progressively unraveled the ties that united the North and the South.
Virtually no institution or issue in American life has managed to transcend the growing hostility between the regions: the conflict over slavery divided religious denominations and reconfigured political parties (with the Republican Party emerging with the voice of Northern Protestants who opposed the expansion of slavery).
Mount Rushmore, in South Dakota - Photo: Pexels/ Pixabay/ Reproduction
This imbalance culminated in the enormous bloodbath of the Civil War. An ongoing conflict then persisted between the federal government and recalcitrant southern whites, who waged a campaign of systemic violence to prevent freed enslaved people from obtaining political and social rights.
This long confrontation only ended when the North abandoned its commitment to Reconstruction and allowed Southern states to impose Jim Crow segregation laws.
Manisha Sinha, a historian at the University of Connecticut and author of "The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic", noted that the celebration of the centennial of the Declaration of Independence in 1876 occurred precisely when the North was allowing the South to once again subjugate its black population.
"It was supposed to be a moment of reconciliation between the North and the South, but it wasn't a very fair peace," she said in an interview.
"The celebration took place at the expense of the black population of the South, who would progressively lose their rights... not to mention that I would suffer terrible racist violence."
Several historians would point to two other periods that, in addition to the Civil War era, generated the greatest internal tensions in the nation to date.
One of these emerged early in the new nation, around the 1800s. Although the founders largely did not foresee the emergence of political parties, intense partisan conflict erupted immediately after George Washington's two terms as the first president of the United States.
On one side was the Federalist Party, based in the Northeast and led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, which sympathized with England in its ongoing global contest against Revolutionary-era France. On the other, there was the Democratic-Republican Party, based in the South and led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who sympathized with France.
Conflicts between them over issues such as tariffs were so heated that Jefferson later wrote: "Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the street to avoid meeting."
However, the conflict reached a truly dangerous level when the Federalists, fearing that the Democratic-Republicans were colluding with France, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, during Adams' presidency, and used them to prosecute newspaper editors and even a U.S. representative aligned with Jefferson's proto-party for criticizing the administration.
"Taken together, the laws divided the citizenry between loyal citizens, respectful of the president, and the disloyal opposition," wrote Corey Brettschneider, a professor of political science at Brown University, in his book "The Presidents and The People."
These tensions eased when the laws expired following Jefferson's victory in the presidential election of 1800. However, the dispute between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans again reached a dangerous level during the War of 1812.
The Federalists were so opposed to England that three party governors, originally from the Northeast, refused to supply troops, and activists even gathered at a convention in 1814 that signaled the possibility of secession, a miscalculation that accelerated the party's collapse.
US President Donald Trump - Alex Wong/Getty Images
Historians often point to the 1960s as the other most intense period of prolonged internal conflict.
In those years, the United States was shaken and challenged by mass movements in defense of civil rights and against the Vietnam War; profound cultural changes in gender relations and sexual mores; sharp generational gap; wave of bombings and other acts of violence committed by far-left groups, such as the Weathermen; growth of far-right movements such as the John Birch Society; racial conflicts in large cities; for a "police riot" during the 1968 Democratic Convention; and for the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
The fierce confrontations of the 1960s continued into the 1970s, fueled by President Richard Nixon's secret attempts to suppress his critics and ensure his re-election, a process that culminated in the Watergate scandal.
Just as the country's centennial celebration was seen as an opportunity for reunification after the Civil War, the 1976 bicentennial echoed themes of reconciliation in the wake of bitter conflicts over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and Watergate.
In contrast, national reconciliation seems so distant now that few leaders this weekend even offered words of formal support to it.
Will Trump-era divisions endure?
Historians differ on how the underlying causes of the discord between "red" and "blue" America today compare to the substantive disputes of the early 19th century and the 1960s.
"In my opinion, we are nowhere near as divided today as we were in the years of Adams and Jefferson or even in the late 1960s," said Yuval Levin, director of Social, Cultural and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative organization.
"We have lived in a scenario of balanced division for so long that none of the parties are really in a position to advance much with their agenda when they win the elections", he added.
So-called Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during attempted assassination at rally in Butler, Pennsylvania - 7/13/2024 REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File
Others see deeper implications in the growing divergence between visions of American identity espoused by Trump-era Democrats and Republicans.
Their conflicting views on rights, freedoms, and who counts as a legitimate American have fueled bitter disputes over immigration, LGBTQIA+ rights, classroom censorship, book bans, diversity in education and the workplace, and access to abortion.
Although the economic battles did not generate as much emotional intensity, the two coalitions presented antagonistic approaches to the federal government's role in providing health care, environmental protection, taxation of the richest and military spending as opposed to domestic needs.
These disputes have played out not only in national politics, but also in a growing divergence between the social and economic policies of Democratic and Republican states, a scenario unprecedented at least since the era of Jim Crow segregation.
"These forces (which divide states) have been operating since before Trump and are now bearing fruit, or producing poison, depending on how you look at the situation," says Kettl.
As Kettl notes, the distance between these two coalitions had already been increasing before Trump emerged as the lynchpin of American politics in 2016. However, he has considerably intensified the force pulling them apart.
Especially in his second term, Trump has sought to mobilize federal power in unprecedented ways against the states and cities that voted against him.
Trump deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles and other Democratic-run cities until the Supreme Court blocked him. (They remain deployed in Washington, D.C., where Trump has been operating under separate authority.)
His administration has launched criminal investigations against several local and state Democratic officials and targeted welfare programs of Democratic-run states with fraud investigations and aid suspensions.
National Guard members stand in line as protesters gather nearby in Los Angeles, California, USA - 06/09/2025 REUTERS/Leah Millis
He has denied emergency aid to Democratic-run states at a much greater rate than to Republican-run states and has imposed drastic reductions in federal spending on scientific research, which disproportionately hurt Democratic-run metropolitan areas.
His administration tried to cut funding to Democratic-run states and cities for virtually every important domestic purpose: public health, housing, disaster preparedness, unless they adopted policies from Republican-run states on immigration, diversity and other issues. (The courts, however, have blocked almost all of these efforts.)
Trump and aides like Stephen Miller regularly portray Democratic officials as disloyal "traitors" engaged in "insurrection" and "insurgent behavior punishable by death."
Historian Douglas Brinkley said he considered these measures against locals who voted against Trump the "most egregious" ways in which the president threatened the nation's democratic principles.
250 years of independence: professor explains US history and its influence | NOW CNN
"The idea that a president punishes states because they didn't vote for him is abhorrent," Brinkley said. "This is authoritarianism by definition."
In an interview, Brettschneider described Trump as an amalgamation of other presidents who, in his opinion, most threatened democracy. Like John Adams, Brettschneider said, Trump belittles political opposition as inherently un-American.
Like Woodrow Wilson, Trump openly harbors racist and nativist resentments. And, like Richard Nixon, famous for having drawn up an "enemies list", Trump wants to use the vast machinery of the federal government to punish his adversaries.
"Each of them (previous presidents) has their own way of doing things; it's not all the same," Brettschneider said. "But what is not new is the idea that America has internal enemies who need to lose their freedom."
Similarly, Manisha Sinha sees the greatest risk in Trump's efforts to label broad segments of the American population, such as immigrants and their children, as well as protesters who oppose his policies, as fundamentally anti-American or as "the enemy within," a phrase he himself has used.
US President Donald Trump - REUTERS/Evan Vucci
"It is a strong indication of an undemocratic and authoritarian government when you question the legitimacy of the very existence of your opponents and the legitimacy of the citizenship of people you don't like," said Sinha.
Levin is also a fierce critic of Trump, whom he accuses of having demonstrated an aggressive and deliberate interest in promoting division.
However, Levin points to the inability of either party to gain a lasting advantage over the other as the main driver of the current divisions. "In practice, we have had two minority parties in American politics since the 2000 election," said Levin, author of the book "American Covenant."
"This means that everything is always at stake, and neither party has an incentive to engage in the kind of negotiation and coalition-building that constitutes the essence of the practice of American constitutionalism," Levin said.
A big question as the nation enters its next 250 years is whether Trump's open hostility toward people and places outside his coalition will serve as a model for future presidents.
Likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidates are striking a tougher tone in confronting the Trump movement, but many observers remain skeptical that they would seek to systematically punish Republican states and electorates in the same way.
Future Republican presidential candidates who want to maintain Trump's support will likely feel more pressure to adopt his confrontational style and strategy, as Vice President JD Vance often demonstrates. Brinkley asserts that the unifying principle of Trump's approach is that "he wants to make people who aren't on his side feel less American."
If voters repudiate that view by rejecting Trump allies in the 2026 and 2028 elections, Brinkley said, it could lead history to view Trump as an intense but fleeting phenomenon.
But if enough voters endorse his approach in the upcoming election, Brinkley added, "that means Trump won and is a hugely consequential figure in U.S. history - not just an era-defining figure, which he already is."
Either way, the deep and bitter divisions that Trump has deepened are likely to persist long after his presidency.
Why are political attacks recurrent in US politics?
Source: CNN