Us vs. Them: Presidential elections have long created deep divisions in our country

American elections, especially presidential ones, are specifically designed to create deep divisions across society, camps labeled Us and Them. You may have noticed this in the tumultuous 2016 upset shockwave that has endured ever since. In this cycle, the election featured two dozen Democrats and a lone Republican who out-talked and out-tweeted them all.

In terms of the work put into campaigning, this cycle has been no contest. The 74-year-old Donald Trump, who fancies himself the upset champion, has campaigned basically nonstop since the convention in late August. On some days, he spoke for an hour at three rallies in as many states, ending with a fundraiser elsewhere. These last few days, he hit 12 states — five on Sunday and five more on Monday.

His challenger, 77-year-old Joe Biden, on some days might campaign as late as 9 or 10 in the morning before calling a lid, either from overconfidence or for some other unknown reason.

Sunday afternoon, Biden was in Philadelphia touting his fealty to the city’s Eagles by pointing to his jacket, which actually carried the logo of Delaware’s Blue Hens. Monday, he remained there and then visited Ohio. No Republican has become president without Ohio in more than a century.

Fifty-seven of our 59 presidential elections have been contested; Revolutionary War hero George Washington won the first two terms basically by acclamation.

Two other elections were technically contested — Franklin Roosevelt’s first reelection in 1936 and Ronald Reagan’s only reelection in 1984. But both were so lopsided — Roosevelt garnered 61% of the popular vote against Alf Landon, and Reagan took 98% of the Electoral College from Walter Mondale — that they were, in effect, no contests.

Because of the Electoral College vagaries, only five presidents including the current one, received fewer popular votes than the losers. For example, 160 years ago this week in the historic 1860 election, Abraham Lincoln won nearly 1.9 million votes, more than anyone ever before, though the lowest percentage of the popular vote for any victor except John Quincy Adams.

That was just under 40% of the popular vote (only white males in those days) to a combined 60% for his three opponents, including a Northern Democrat and a Southern Democrat.

So divided was the country over the issue of slavery that some Southern states doctored ballots to delete Lincoln’s name. In his native Kentucky, staunch abolitionist Lincoln received only 1,364 votes of a total 146,216. South Carolina launched the Civil War before Lincoln’s inauguration.

The 16th president did take every Northern state except New Jersey. Much of the West remained territories. But Lincoln’s political base was the rural heartland, Minnesota down through the Midwest and back to Pennsylvania.

Does that sound familiar? That’s basically the same area, now called the Rust Belt, that the New York billionaire captured four years ago, albeit narrowly in some states. He needed to repeat that this time, despite late polls showing him behind, as he also was in late 2016 polls.

That’s what makes history so fascinating, the contrasts and similarities with modern times. Remember the brouhaha in 2000 when television networks called Florida for Al Gore, potentially affecting the outcome in the Central time zone of the state’s conservative Panhandle, which was still voting?

Until 1845, every state had its own voting days for president as long as each came before early December. Now, states begin early voting on different days.

Different election days didn’t really matter in the early 1800s. But something happened in 1844 to change all that. The telegraph came along and could, well, telegraph results from one state to another later-voting state.

So, Congress stipulated that everyone would vote for chief executive on the same day. And being a Congress full of lawyers, it did so in a most tortured way. Election Day would be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Why early November, you might ask? The 28 states that existed in those days were overwhelmingly agrarian. Harvests were complete by late October, and harsh winters began in December. Sunday was the Sabbath. So, that was out. Most people lived a day’s travel from town and Wednesday was market day. They’d want to be in town by then anyway.

Clearly, things have changed, and not just on Election Day. Election divisions endure. The telegraph has become television with instant images and commentary and, of course, Twitter, enabling anyone for better or worse, even a president, to instantly reach his 87.4 million followers, roughly eight times Biden’s following.

Lincoln’s followers clamored around him all day on Nov. 6, 1860, though he reportedly remained calm, even tranquil. Actually campaigning for the presidency was considered bad form in those days, a sign of desperation. So, all fall he continued his legal practice in Springfield, Illinois. He voted in public on Election Day, but clipped his own name off the ballot for modesty’s sake.

On election evening, Lincoln left the developing celebration at the state capitol and walked to the telegraph office, where he’d been invited to await final results. On his way to learn he would become the nation’s 16th leader, the first Republican to become president stopped at a store.

There, the tall, gangly backwoodsman who would lead the divided country through a civil war, free the slaves, restore the Union and days after that get shot in the back of the head, bought himself a new pair of socks. ‘

This story was originally published November 3, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Us vs. Them: Presidential elections have long created deep divisions in our country."