|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
On March 24, 1765, Parliament passes the Quartering Act, outlining the locations and conditions in which British soldiers are to find room and board in the American colonies.
The Quartering Act of 1765 required the colonies to house British soldiers in barracks provided by the colonies. If the barracks were too small to house all the soldiers, then localities were to accommodate the soldiers in local inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses and the houses of sellers of wine. "Should there still be soldiers without accommodation after all such publick houses were filled," the act read, "the colonies were then required to take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty’s forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary."
As the language of the act makes clear, the popular image of Redcoats tossing colonists from their bedchambers in order to move in themselves was not the intent of the law; neither was it the practice. However, the New York colonial assembly disliked being commanded to provide quarter for British troops—they preferred to be asked and then to give their consent, if they were going to have soldiers in their midst at all. Thus, they refused to comply with the law, and in 1767, Parliament passed the New York Restraining Act. The Restraining Act prohibited the royal governor of New York from signing any further legislation until the assembly complied with the Quartering Act.
In New York, the governor managed to convince Parliament that the assembly had complied. In Massachusetts, where barracks already existed on an island from which soldiers had no hope of keeping the peace in a city riled by the Townshend Revenue Acts, British officers followed the Quartering Act’s injunction to quarter their soldiers in public places, not in private homes. Within these constraints, their only option was to pitch tents on Boston Common. The soldiers, living cheek by jowl with riled Patriots, were soon involved in street brawls and then the Boston Massacre of 1770, during which not only five rock-throwing colonial rioters were killed but any residual trust between Bostonians and the resident Redcoats. That breach would never be healed in the New England port city, and the British soldiers stayed in Boston until George Washington drove them out with the Continental Army in 1776.
saymedia.com
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/parliament-passes-the-quartering-act?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0324-03242023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2
Another example of how the American colonists were oppressed by the British Government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13345
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
|
Quote: The English Bill of Rights of 1689 listed the right of the king’s subjects “not to be burdened with the sojourning of soldiers against their will.”
And so it was in New England, was it not? Where then is the oppression?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
One of the reason the American colonists were not British subjects. The Colonists did not have any representation in Parliament
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13345
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Indeed they were British subjects with all the legal rights associated. The Intolerable Acts as they were called and the Quebec Act were used masterfully by the propagandists among the insurrectionists to convince the average colonists that he was somehow abused.
Should the colonists have had representation in Parliament. I think but I do not think that any representation would have been sufficient to stop the imposition of the Quartering Act, the Port Act, the Justice Act and the Act that controlled the Massachusetts government. Nor would it have been sufficient to stop previous taxes like the Stamp Act. What then?
The colonists should also have been more grateful for the blood spilled by their British brothers to eliminate the French fact from North America, something that the colonists had demanded previously. The soldiers also provided protection from First Nations' raiders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
If the Colonists were British subjects, then they too would have been protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
When you apply a truth table to this If.....Then proposition, and if the proposition is true, then If the American colonists were NOT protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, Then the Colonists were NOT British subjects....is also true. And the evidence shows that the Colonists were not protected....therefore, not British subjects.
The Intolerable Acts showed the Colonists the abusive Power of Great Britain. If GB could do that to Boston and ruin their economy and Government, they could do that to any colony.
IIRC, the American Colonists also spilled blood during the French and Indian War and should have been more appreciative of the Colonists defending their homes.
But then again, the Brits didn't listen to the Colonists as to the manor of frontier fighting, and did not recognize the authority of Colonial officers, who were more experienced in frontier fighting/
Just sayin'
Cheers,
NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13345
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
The US Bill of Rights adopted much of what was written in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Some of the colonists felt that those rights had been ignored.
That alone does not mean that the colonists were not British subjects despite your attempt to rationalize it in a truth table. That status could not be altered with a simple declaration of independence. It had to be won in a war unless the British were willing to grant it, in that historical period.
I think that they had legitimate complaints that could have been challenged without insurrection. The British did repeal other legislation like the Stamp Act prior to the Coercive Acts. That they did not repeal those acts was an error on the part of the British.
It is true that the colonies were able to provide provincial troops in addition to their sedentary militia. Also true that in the early days of the French and the Indian Wars, some of the colonists were discouraged with the support presented by the crown. That would change.
Colonial troops and militia were not very effective in the type of large scale combat that eventually defeated the French on the Plains of Abraham. Even George Washington, who may have started the North American phase of the war when his unit assassinated French envoy Jumonville, had very little respect for militia troops.
By 1758, Britain had deployed over 20,000 regulars to North America. What is not often appreciated is that many British regiments arrived short of numbers and colonists were encouraged to join the British army where they were trained to fight. The British even created the Royal American regiment and to encourage enrolment, men who could not command in other British units were permitted to command in this regiment.
The colonial "armies" did fight of course and not always under the direction of the British. I would never intend to imply that they did not.
However, when the British regular forces finally amassed it was they that destroyed Fortress Louisbourg in 1758 and defeated Montcalm at Québec. We can never know whether the provincial troops and militia of the different colonies could have defeated the French forces in all of New France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
|
Quote: The US Bill of Rights adopted much of what was written in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Some of the colonists felt that those rights had been ignored.
That alone does not mean that the colonists were not British subjects despite your attempt to rationalize it in a truth table. That status could not be altered with a simple declaration of independence. It had to be won in a war unless the British were willing to grant it, in that historical period.
I think that they had legitimate complaints that could have been challenged without insurrection. The British did repeal other legislation like the Stamp Act prior to the Coercive Acts. That they did not repeal those acts was an error on the part of the British.
It is true that the colonies were able to provide provincial troops in addition to their sedentary militia. Also true that in the early days of the French and the Indian Wars, some of the colonists were discouraged with the support presented by the crown. That would change.
Colonial troops and militia were not very effective in the type of large scale combat that eventually defeated the French on the Plains of Abraham. Even George Washington, who may have started the North American phase of the war when his unit assassinated French envoy Jumonville, had very little respect for militia troops.
By 1758, Britain had deployed over 20,000 regulars to North America. What is not often appreciated is that many British regiments arrived short of numbers and colonists were encouraged to join the British army where they were trained to fight. The British even created the Royal American regiment and to encourage enrolment, men who could not command in other British units were permitted to command in this regiment.
The colonial "armies" did fight of course and not always under the direction of the British. I would never intend to imply that they did not.
However, when the British regular forces finally amassed it was they that destroyed Fortress Louisbourg in 1758 and defeated Montcalm at Québec. We can never know whether the provincial troops and militia of the different colonies could have defeated the French forces in all of New France.
Not only were they not British subjects, the British Government thought so too! Englishmen were protected by the English Bill of Rights, so when the Parliament passed the Quartering Act, they acknowledged that the American colonists were not British subjects.
Colonia militia was successful against Indians, and Indian warfare. The Battle at the Monongehela showed that the British were lacking. In fact, I can say that even British regulars lacked effectiveness on the battlefield. At Ticonderoga, the British suffered a tremendous defeat because of inadequate recon and the lack of use of cannon.
Cheers,
NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13345
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Quote:Quote: The US Bill of Rights adopted much of what was written in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Some of the colonists felt that those rights had been ignored.
That alone does not mean that the colonists were not British subjects despite your attempt to rationalize it in a truth table. That status could not be altered with a simple declaration of independence. It had to be won in a war unless the British were willing to grant it, in that historical period.
I think that they had legitimate complaints that could have been challenged without insurrection. The British did repeal other legislation like the Stamp Act prior to the Coercive Acts. That they did not repeal those acts was an error on the part of the British.
It is true that the colonies were able to provide provincial troops in addition to their sedentary militia. Also true that in the early days of the French and the Indian Wars, some of the colonists were discouraged with the support presented by the crown. That would change.
Colonial troops and militia were not very effective in the type of large scale combat that eventually defeated the French on the Plains of Abraham. Even George Washington, who may have started the North American phase of the war when his unit assassinated French envoy Jumonville, had very little respect for militia troops.
By 1758, Britain had deployed over 20,000 regulars to North America. What is not often appreciated is that many British regiments arrived short of numbers and colonists were encouraged to join the British army where they were trained to fight. The British even created the Royal American regiment and to encourage enrolment, men who could not command in other British units were permitted to command in this regiment.
The colonial "armies" did fight of course and not always under the direction of the British. I would never intend to imply that they did not.
However, when the British regular forces finally amassed it was they that destroyed Fortress Louisbourg in 1758 and defeated Montcalm at Québec. We can never know whether the provincial troops and militia of the different colonies could have defeated the French forces in all of New France.
Not only were they not British subjects, the British Government thought so too! Englishmen were protected by the English Bill of Rights, so when the Parliament passed the Quartering Act, they acknowledged that the American colonists were not British subjects. Colonia militia was successful against Indians, and Indian warfare. The Battle at the Monongehela showed that the British were lacking. In fact, I can say that even British regulars lacked effectiveness on the battlefield. At Ticonderoga, the British suffered a tremendous defeat because of inadequate recon and the lack of use of cannon. Cheers, NYGiant
Cite your sources.
Deal with the totality of the war. Braddock lost because of a failure to follow British doctrine. Interesting that you stop your slagging of the British as it suits you. As their numbers increased they took it to the French. They did win, you know. There is that little fact that you seem to have ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Cite your sources.
1. The English Bill of Rights. The idea of quartering soldiers in private homes without the owners’ consent, even in wartime, had been illegal in England for many years before the American Revolution. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 listed the right of the king’s subjects “not to be burdened with the sojourning of soldiers against their will.”
Our Constitution also says the same thing.No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The English Bill of Rights is pretty adamant on that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13345
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
|
Quote: Cite your sources.
1. The English Bill of Rights. The idea of quartering soldiers in private homes without the owners’ consent, even in wartime, had been illegal in England for many years before the American Revolution. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 listed the right of the king’s subjects “not to be burdened with the sojourning of soldiers against their will.”
Our Constitution also says the same thing.No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The English Bill of Rights is pretty adamant on that point.
Indeed and since the British did not demand the use of private homes as billets, that right of a British subject not to be burdened with the sojourning of soldiers against their will was protected in the colonies. That is how the British soldiers found themselves living in tents in Boston.
The colonists were required to build barracks to house the soldiers or to convert buildings like inns and stables to accommodations if barracks were not built. Private homes?? No, as per the English Bill of Rights.
The second Quartering Act of 1774 did expand the type of public building that could be converted but at no time were British subjects in the colonies required to accept soldiers in their homes.
No doubt the Quartering Act was contentious. There was a cost borne by the colonies to arrange and pay for places for the soldiers to stay. I don't think that that was necessarily unfair myself but it was deemed as oppressive.
What is annoying is that too many web articles simply state that colonists were forced to accept soldiers in their homes. I believe that to be another myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Among those grievances against King George III was that he “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” and was “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” Though he was not referring to soldiers being stationed inside inhabited private homes, the very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty.
Emphasis on the words.....the very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty. Guys with guns can take liberty away from those unarmed.
Hence one of the reasons we Americans did not want a standing Army in the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
"Among those grievances against King George III was that he “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” and was “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” Though he was not referring to soldiers being stationed inside inhabited private homes, the very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty.
Emphasis on the words.....the very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty. Guys with guns can take liberty away from those unarmed."
Quote: Guys with guns can take liberty away from those unarmed.
Finally you understand the second amendment !!!!!!
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Please show me in the US Constitution where it condones the violent over-throw of the duly elected Government?
The militia was to be called out initially by the Congress to out down insurrections and rebellions, especially slave rebellions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
NY
So what would have happened if the King had succeeded with disarming the American colonists before the Revolution? There would be no US Constitution or US. And I never said the second amendment was created to enable a violent overthrow of the government, it is there to give potential tyrants pause, plus it gives a person the ability to defend themselves especially today after the defund the police notions. I can tell you first hand the police are demoralized and if you think the police will solve all your security concerns think again, imagine the most disillusioned government worker coming to your aid . You seem to have issues with government over reach 250 years ago but have complete trust in government today. Somehow humans have progressed into a different form in your view since then as Dictators are becoming the norm throughout the world and our own government keeps encroaching on everything we say and do.
For example most dictatorships rely on their security forces to stay in power they are paid well given perks that are over an above what the general populace has. So countries like Iran, Belarus, that are teetering they rely on these forces these men have families and rely on their job and the security of their job and im sure many back the regimes or they do not out of fear. When there is an insurrection and mass protests these forces know they can put them down by shooting into crowds and they usually win. Imagine now if these forces knew they could be shot back at even with shot guns and pistols the equation changes.
Having an armed populace gives pause and the first thing a dictator does is disarms the populace, Hitler did it Mussolini too, hunting rifles confiscated. I do think though in the US we need more controls as to who is allowed to get guns but nobody trusts the government to regulate this because of the extremes our polarized society goes to today to achieve political goals. Nothing is done with common sense its over reach by both political sides.
You cant have it both ways human nature has not changed in 250 years.
Quote: Guys with guns can take liberty away from those unarmed. your Quote
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
A couple of things...
1. The Founding Fathers were reluctant to have a standing army because an autocrat/president could use that army to start a war. That is one reason they made going to war rather difficult. The other reason is it is the Congress and not the President who determines when and where we go to war.
2. it is a myth that the 2nd Amendment is there to overthrow the duly elected Government.
3. The 2nd amendment was written by a slave owner in order to call out the militia to suppress a slave rebellion
4. In the Constitution, the Congress had the right o call out the militia to suppress a rebellion or insurrection and not the President. Laws had to be passed for the President to call out the militia.
5. you are wrong about defunding the police. The police carry a gun and can take freedom away from an individual...Ahmad Aubry, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor for instance. Ans they can beat up a man, Rodney King.
6. You are WRONG about Hitler. Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919 – laws that in fact required the surrender of all guns to the government. These laws remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm-licensing scheme. These strict licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power.
If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. If the Jews had been allowed guns, the 523,000 Jews would have been out-gunned by remaining 78 million Germans.
7. You are WRONG about Mussolini. Mussolini left property rights and gun ownership laws intact.
8. Don't believe the NRA
1. We know that a good guy with a guy is afraid to stop a bad guy with a gun. Look at Columbine, Parkland and Uvalde.
2. The reason Japan never invaded the US had nothing to do with an armed populace
3. The NRA did not support giving Afro-American firearms, nor was it founded for that reason.
4. The militia does not exist to over throw the duly elected Government.
9. The fact that we now have a standing army, because of the world we live in, makes the 2nd Amendment obsolete and archaic.
10. Guns don't kill people, people kill people...knives don't kill people, people kill people, ..cars don't kill people, people kill people...Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. LOL...no inanimate object kills, so that makes the comment, moot.
11. Fact is, 27 children and adults were murdered in Sandy Hook because of a gun. In China, where they do have gun control and where gun ownership is not banned, , 14 children were wounded in a knife attack and survived.
Murdering children is too great a price to pay in order to carry a firearm in public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
NY
I dont know how to respond to that, Hitler and Mussolini were ok with gun rights?
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
read the amendment, Im not going to insult you anymore your either a baby or an old man stuck in poop or swimming in soup.
vpstrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Read History and find out for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where does it say that it can be used over-throw the duly elected Government? Where does it say you can have one for self defense?
Seems to me, the right to own a gun is predicated on being in the militia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
|
Quote: read the amendment, Im not going to insult you anymore your either a baby or an old man stuck in poop or swimming in soup.
vpstrick
ROFL.....I feel sorry for you. You can't differentiate between your and you're.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
A Well regulated Militia, comma,,, being necessary to the security of a free state,... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Go to Canada if you dont like it
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
yore has been an issue, or rely on the defunded cops
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
In my copy of the US Constitution, I don't see the word "comma". What copy of the US Constitution do you have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
|
Quote: yore has been an issue
well...maybe..... in days of yore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
"yore has been an issue, or rely on the defunded cops"
yea...I'll rely on defended police. defunding the police doesn't mean taking money away from them but removing and reallocating those funds to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources.
That way the police can do their job...and police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
I have worked in prison's and there are folks that will take life away from me by talking to them. you are one of those people.
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
|
Quote: I have worked in prison's and there are folks that will take life away from me by talking to them. you are one of those people.
vpatrick
stay safe man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
thanks same to you
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Parliament passes the Quartering Act.
|
Another mass murder in the United States..
Why do we sacrifice our children upon the altar of the NRA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
