Does the extreme polarization in Congress have you pulling your hair out?

It could be worse. And it has.

Joanne B. Freeman, the nation’s leading historian on Alexander Hamilton, has just released a new book, “The Field of Blood: Congressional Violence and the Road to Civil War.”

And the book is full of instances where congressmen waved Bowie knives, drew pistols, caned their colleagues and debated with their fists. One even killed another in a duel.

“I was interested in the emotion tied up in ‘dirty angry politics, ’” said Freeman, who spoke at the third annual Alturas Institute’s Conversation with Exceptional Women held this week at Ketchum’s Community Library.  “In one instance, there was even a senator from Ohio who walked into the Capitol and layed a gun down on his desk. It was the equivalent of ‘Bring it on!’ ”

The threats, beatings, bullying and intimidation became more frequent as the antebellum Congress moved towards Civil War.

There were 70 physical conflicts involving knives, guns and fistfights that were noted in the Congressional Record between the 1830s and the Civil War, Freeman said.

Freeman tells the story through 11 journals of Benjamin Brown French, a clerk in the House of Representatives whom she said had a front row seat to the name calling, insults to representatives’ masculinity and brawling that erupted regularly in Congress.

One of the worst took place in 1838 when Kentucky Rep. William Graves approached Jonathan Cilley of Maine with a letter from a newspaper editor who was incensed over a bribery accusation that Cilley had made on the House floor. When Cilley refused to accept the letter, Graves interpreted it as an insult to his character and challenged Cilley to a duel, killing Cilley in the third round.

The House refused to censure Graves but did offer a bill prohibiting dueling within the District of Columbia.

In 1856 Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina nearly killed Sen. Charles Sumner, an abolitionist from Massachusetts, with his walking cane after Sumner criticized slaveholders, accusing them of maintaining slavery so they could have sex with their slaves.

In 1850 Sen. Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri lunged at Sen. Henry Foote of Mississippi who pulled a pistol, pointing it at Benton. The pistol was taken away before he could pull the trigger.

“One of the things the book shows is how Congress used threats to keep the institution of slavery,” said Freeman. “They didn’t need to be violent all the time because they used the power of intimidation to get their way. You had guys objecting saying, ‘If you do that again, I’m going to cut your throat.’ ”

Threats came from those outside Congress, as well. Former President John Quincy Adams’ antislavery agenda prompted one man to accost him. “You are wrong and I will kick you,” he said, swinging at Adams until he was arrested.

In another case, a northerner from Pennsylvania made an objection while standing amidst Southern Democrats.

It prompted one of the men to grab him by the collar and knock him flat. Northern senators jumped over chairs and desks to defend their friend, and pretty soon there was a free for all in what one reporter referred to as senators “fighting in battalions.”

This breakdown of reasoned discourse paved the road to the Civil War, said Freeman.

“Essentially, you had a battle between the North and South and, sadly, by the end of the book everyone was violent,”  she said.

The newspapers of the day responded with sensationalized articles and conspiracy theories aimed at selling papers. And the telegraph—the social media of the day—helped spread the vitriol.

When one senator pulled a gun on another during debate and a melee erupted, one man said, “I hope everyone realizes that in 45 minutes the nation is going to realize we’re slaughtering everyone in the Senate,” Freeman recounted.

As a historian, Freeman said, she sees echoes of the past in today’s extreme political polarization, the  dysfunctional Congress, government instability , splintering political parties and norms of constitutional democracy being violated daily.

“I wish people would realize that such anger has happened before,” she said. “Inevitably, there will be a shift, a time of change. At some point in time we will rise above hyper-partisanship and realize we’ve gone too far, assuming we maintain a free democracy. And things will swing back.”