Do you think Preston brooks punishment was reasonable why or why not?

Preston Brooks' punishment for his violent attack on Charles Sumner in 1856, which was a caning in the Senate chamber, can be seen as relatively lenient given the severity of his actions. Many viewed the punishment as inadequate because it did not reflect the gravity of the assault, which was a significant act of political violence. However, in the context of the time, where personal honor and dueling were more accepted, some may argue that it was reasonable. Ultimately, the reaction to his punishment highlighted the deepening divisions in the U.S. over issues like slavery and civil conduct.