No.

It's nothing like around the time of slavery abolition.

It's not nearly as harsh as things got when they debated the introduction of conscription and income tax.

If you considered historical figures such as Andrew Jackson, who would challenge political opponents to duels involving pistols and revolvers, today's disputes between wings would seem peaceful in comparison.

If anything, party division in the U.S. Congress is now rather benign. Most politicians now follow a path of making a career out of public office. Positions tend to waiver in order to conform to prevailing winds. Enemies today, friends tomorrow; Democrat today, Republican tomorrow. The quest for "consensus building" sounds so fair and peaceful, but in reality removes the true edge which is required to actually achieve progress.

Anger is presented as a stage show at news conferences and on the campaign trail. Anger now is just rhetorical. This means that the current Congress is also less passionate than decades, or centuries before.

Be it a Republican agenda, or a Democratic agenda, true change does not happen with plurality, it comes with one side bringing to bear its political force of numbers against the other at the right time and for the right cause.

Politics is an ugly business, and it probably should be.

For true anger think back to Preston Smith Brooks, a Democratic South Carolina Congressman who beat unconscious Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor. (note: I'm not advocating something like that either)