Answer:
John Brown was an abolitionist who believed in using violent means to end slavery. He led a raid on a federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859, hoping to inspire a slave rebellion. The raid failed and Brown was captured and executed for treason. Some abolitionists saw Brown as a hero for his dedication to the cause of ending slavery, while others criticized his use of violence.
Representative Brooks, on the other hand, was a pro-slavery advocate who attacked Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the Senate in 1856. Brooks was angered by a speech Sumner had given in which he criticized the pro-slavery forces in Kansas. The attack left Sumner seriously injured and inflamed tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States.
Whether or not the violent actions of John Brown or Representative Brooks were justified as acts of revenge is a matter of debate and depends on one's moral, political, and historical perspectives. Some may argue that Brown's actions were justified as a means of bringing attention to the atrocities of slavery and sparking a revolution, while others may see it as an act of terrorism that only worsened the tensions between the North and South. Similarly, some may argue that Brooks was justified in defending the honor of the pro-slavery movement and responding to Sumner's criticisms, while others may see the attack as a brutal and unjustifiable assault on free speech and political discourse.
Overall, it is important to consider the historical context, motivations, and consequences of these violent acts before making a judgment on their justifiability.
Step-by-step explanation: