Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yes but I am not sleeping in your house, which is what that is referring too. Quartering refers to providing housing or shelter. It doesn't imply that you're sleeping there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Quartering refers to providing housing or shelter. It doesn't imply that you're sleeping there. Yes it does, the law was originally made so that soldiers couldn't just sleep in any house they wanted like the British did in the American Revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yes it does, the law was originally made so that soldiers couldn't just sleep in any house they wanted like the British did in the American Revolution. From Oxford: the provision of accommodations or lodgings, esp. for troops. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-quartering.html Accomodations is not specific enough to be legally interpreted as just a place to sleep. This could also legally include food, a chair to sit in or something as simple as being inside to get out of the elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaMigra Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Who needs the History Channel I am learning right here... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandium Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yes it does, the law was originally made so that soldiers couldn't just sleep in any house they wanted like the British did in the American Revolution. So I can come in their house and use it as a base, as long as I don't sleep eh? :ooo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Who needs the History Channel I am learning right here... lol Lol. Quartering. As in providing quarters. Quarters being an area for someone to stay with annemities provided to them. Sometimes includes a bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 :ooo: Sure Van if you can find it, you can stay here. Although you might need a rocket to help you get here Anyways Wing while that maybe so, the amendment was originally created for the purpose that you cannot sleep there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Sure Van if you can find it, you can stay here. Although you might need a rocket to help you get here Anyways Wing while that maybe so, the amendment was originally created for the purpose that you cannot sleep there. *sigh* The first quartering act required that solders be allowed to stay "in inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualing houses, and the houses of sellers of wine and houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cider or metheglin", and if required by numbers "uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings"... "upon neglect or refusal of such governor and council in any province" and the inhabitants of those buildings (or public officials if there aren't inhabitants) to provide "fire, candles, vinegar, salt, bedding, and utensils". The colonists told the Brits to piss off and sleep on their ship. The second quartering act was part of The Intolerable Acts, and said that a governor may house soldiers in EMPTY BUILDINGS, but does not ask that provisions be provided. PRESENTLY, troops cannot be quartered on private property without the consent of the owners. TL;DR - Go back to high school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 *sigh* The first quartering act required that solders be allowed to stay "in inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualing houses, and the houses of sellers of wine and houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cider or metheglin", and if required by numbers "uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings"... "upon neglect or refusal of such governor and council in any province" and the inhabitants of those buildings (or public officials if there aren't inhabitants) to provide "fire, candles, vinegar, salt, bedding, and utensils". The colonists told the Brits to piss off and sleep on their ship. The second quartering act was part of The Intolerable Acts, and said that a governor may house soldiers in EMPTY BUILDINGS, but does not ask that provisions be provided. PRESENTLY, troops cannot be quartered on private property without the consent of the owners. TL;DR - Go back to high school. Well for starter I am still in High School and have taken AP American History. Clearly I don't understand for starters what you mean that presently troops can just walk into someone house and demand to be able to be quartered there. As for the colonist I am not quite sure what you are talking about that they were not forced to have British Troops in their house. The British felt that the colonist owed a debt to them, so they felt that the colonist were obligated to do whatever they wanted. So instead of building barracks, they housed most of their soldiers in established colonist's houses. After the war had been won it was considered against a Person's rights to be forced to house a soldier or any person against their will. So to sum it up they were in fact not given the option to house the soldiers or not, it was mandatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurfy Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 i was reading til i saw big paragraphs talking about history that i would learn in school, yet its summer =[ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Well for starter I am still in High School and have taken AP American History. Clearly I don't understand for starters what you mean that presently troops can just walk into someone house and demand to be able to be quartered there. As for the colonist I am not quite sure what you are talking about that they were not forced to have British Troops in their house. The British felt that the colonist owed a debt to them, so they felt that the colonist were obligated to do whatever they wanted. So instead of building barracks, they housed most of their soldiers in established colonist's houses. After the war had been won it was considered against a Person's rights to be forced to house a soldier or any person against their will. So to sum it up they were in fact not given the option to house the soldiers or not, it was mandatory. Quartering in private houses without resident consent is a myth after the Intolerable Acts was passed. If soldiers stayed forcefully in private residences, it was without government consent. After the first quartering act, I can see where private dwellings could be interpreted as "other buildings" if one wanted to. Aside from that point, troops were allowed to be quartered in buildings that people owned (bars, inns, etc.) but did not actively live in. At least as far as the British were concerned. The colonists weren't having much of that. And I said exactly the opposite of what you interpreted regarding modern day troops. Read twice, reply stupidly once. It's a good policy for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Quartering in private houses without resident consent is a myth after the Intolerable Acts was passed. If soldiers stayed forcefully in private residences, it was without government consent. After the first quartering act, I can see where private dwellings could be interpreted as "other buildings" if one wanted to. Aside from that point, troops were allowed to be quartered in buildings that people owned (bars, inns, etc.) but did not actively live in. At least as far as the British were concerned. The colonists weren't having much of that. And I said exactly the opposite of what you interpreted regarding modern day troops. Read twice, reply stupidly once. It's a good policy for life. Its a myth on what grounds? What evidence do you have to support that fact? I would like you to read a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me, Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen. Anyways aside from the "mythical" quartering in private house, your understanding of what the bill was originally conceived for is flawed. British Commanders were given directions to have their troops housed in Colonists DID live in, going so far as to kicking them out without compensation. They were under the impression as I stated previously that the Colonists were in dept to the British and as such all of their property was actually property of England. Were the British landed there were not many "inn, bars, ect." and was not enough to accommodate the over 60,000 soldiers. Lastly smug remarks like "Read twice, reply stupidly once. It's a good policy for life" will not get you any credibility from the person your debating with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Its a myth on what grounds? What evidence do you have to support that fact? I would like you to read a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me, Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen. Anyways aside from the "mythical" quartering in private house, your understanding of what the bill was originally conceived for is flawed. British Commanders were given directions to have their troops housed in Colonists DID live in, going so far as to kicking them out without compensation. They were under the impression as I stated previously that the Colonists were in dept to the British and as such all of their property was actually property of England. Were the British landed there were not many "inn, bars, ect." and was not enough to accommodate the over 60,000 soldiers. Lastly smug remarks like "Read twice, reply stupidly once. It's a good policy for life" will not get you any credibility from the person your debating with. I somehow think that a book stating one person's interpritation of a manuscript is going to be substantially less accurate than THE ACTUAL MANUSCRIPT. What the troops actually did in certain situations is not what is not what is being discussed here, the laws the Brits posted is. If we're talking hypothetically, the 3rd amendment would have been written in a vague enough way to have the events caused by implementation and British abuse of the quartering acts to be repeated. Those events being housing of troops in any capacity on private property, and any sort of annemities being provided to the troops against the private citizen's will. I'm not debating with you. I'm telling you how it's written. Debate would require there to be two valid stances to take on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UN4M3D Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Battle of the nerds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I somehow think that a book stating one person's interpritation of a manuscript is going to be substantially less accurate than THE ACTUAL MANUSCRIPT. What the troops actually did in certain situations is not what is not what is being discussed here, the laws the Brits posted is. If we're talking hypothetically, the 3rd amendment would have been written in a vague enough way to have the events caused by implementation and British abuse of the quartering acts to be repeated. Those events being housing of troops in any capacity on private property, and any sort of annemities being provided to the troops against the private citizen's will. I'm not debating with you. I'm telling you how it's written. Debate would require there to be two valid stances to take on the subject. Its actually a really good book and even if you don't believe anything he explains. You may have been correct pre-revolution but what I am referring to is during. After declaring "Independence" all laws the protected the Colonists were Void and as such where not used by British Commanders. If you want to call it a coincidence that they decide the make a bill, similar to what happened to them, thats fine. However the Quartering Act forced the colonists the accept British soldiers in their homes. If they didn't comply they were forcefully removed from their house. So going back to the entire reason this discussion, (Yes its a discussion) the British did if fact force colonist the use of their homes for rest, among other things. I cannot understand what part of my argument you consider not valid and not debating. A debate by definition is"a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints". As far as I can tell we both have opposing viewpoints and are discussing them, so it is a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Its actually a really good book and even if you don't believe anything he explains. You may have been correct pre-revolution but what I am referring to is during. After declaring "Independence" all laws the protected the Colonists were Void and as such where not used by British Commanders. If you want to call it a coincidence that they decide the make a bill, similar to what happened to them, thats fine. However the Quartering Act forced the colonists the accept British soldiers in their homes. If they didn't comply they were forcefully removed from their house. So going back to the entire reason this discussion, (Yes its a discussion) the British did if fact force colonist the use of their homes for rest, among other things. I cannot understand what part of my argument you consider not valid and not debating. A debate by definition is"a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints". As far as I can tell we both have opposing viewpoints and are discussing them, so it is a debate. What the specific law states and what actually happened are separate matters. The Bill of Rights/3rd amendment was very likely in direct response to the quartering acts to prevent the current government of repeating any of the acts that they considered unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 What the specific law states and what actually happened are separate matters. The Bill of Rights/3rd amendment was very likely in direct response to the quartering acts to prevent the current government of repeating any of the acts that they considered unacceptable. Except what the law said is exactly what happened. Anyways I found were you said that is was a "myth" and I am disappointed that you would use Wikipedia as a source. Regardless I checked all sources that were given and none of which included any proof to the fact that the actions in the law were not taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UN4M3D Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 :drama: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Except what the law said is exactly what happened. Anyways I found were you said that is was a "myth" and I am disappointed that you would use Wikipedia as a source. Regardless I checked all sources that were given and none of which included any proof to the fact that the actions in the law were not taken. Britannica. Unless that's not a valid source for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Britannica. Unless that's not a valid source for you. Well lets see...Britannica....Biased? Nah, why would they be biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Well lets see...Britannica....Biased? Nah, why would they be biased. Though I would expect bias over events, It's kind of hard to outright forge publicly accessible legislature without someone noticing. Unless you happen to have some American encyclopedia that directly contrasts what Britannica wrote. Again, the text of the law, not the events surrounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa John Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Were not talking about Legislature, we have established that with the Quartering Act. The question is if it actually happened or not, which would be an event. Of course the British would say that they were not infringing on colonists rights just like we "don't" use illegal wire tapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Were not talking about Legislature, we have established that with the Quartering Act. The question is if it actually happened or not, which would be an event. Of course the British would say that they were not infringing on colonists rights just like we "don't" use illegal wire tapping. I don't doubt that it probably happened. The Brits were trying to keep control of what they considered their land. Regardless, quartering in occupied buildings was not condoned by the second act. The difference between us wiretapping and them quartering against the second act is that we have legislature that allows us to do what would have originally been defined as legal. They had just the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiez Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 what does quartering have to with Jailbreak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 what does quartering have to with Jailbreak? Not a bloody thing, but SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.