Talk:Quartering Acts

Comment
Is the link to the article 'Time' in the following sentence not a bit irrelevant? The passage is this:

Time has largely invalidated both.

Why define 'time', but not 'to invalidate', 'to have' or 'both'?

213.93.227.195

Third Amendment
It would be interesting to find out when the Third Amendment has ever been used. Does anyone happen to know? – Minh Nguy&#7877;n (talk, contribs, blog) 03:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

^^^^The only time the Third Amendment has had to be interpreted by the Supreme Court is Engblom v. Carey. Firestorm 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the district court resolved the case. Follow the link for more information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom
Kingdom of Great Britain should be used instead of United Kingdom as later did not exist until 1801. Djegan 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
There's been vandalism or mistakes under the section "Modern relevance". The paragraph ended with some nonsense:

"then isaac smith run to lexington and shot himself in the face. 2pac was there and so was TI and they had a rap battle . if 2pac the patriots would win the war and gain freedom."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.29.0 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, this article is a very common object of vandalism. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Quarter act
what was the quarter act you ask well it was when the colonist had to house the soldiers feed them wash there clothes do there chorse they did not like it at all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.246.196.1 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Smart
Wouldn't it be a smart idea to say why they did the quartering acts? Dermato1 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, added. BradMajors 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quartering Act of 1774
The Quartering Act of 1774 did not add anything which was not already in the Quartering Act of 1765, and the article should reflect this. On the other hand, if the Act of 1774 instead of confirming, was intended to replace the Act of 1765 this is significant since the most onerous provisions only appear in the Act of 1765. BradMajors 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The second Quartering Act was intended to simply infuriate the colonists and to pressure them to comply with British Rule. This act was not meant to be either a continuation or replacement of the previous one. Cubie Newbie (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1965/1774
I don't believe that the Act of 1965 actually required the American colonists to supply the English with candles, food, etc, but only housing. Anyone have proof on this?

-192.168.1.100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.216.90 (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "the Act of 1765" and not "the Act of 1965" that you have stated above. Here is the proof you desire from the text of the Act:
 * That in case any innholder, or other person, on whom any non commission officers or private men shall be quartered by virtue of this act... shall be desirous to furnish such noncommission officers or soldiers with candles, vinegar, and salt, and with small beer or cyder, not exceeding five pints, or half a pint of rum mixed with a quart of water, for each man per diem, gratis, and allow to such noncommission officers or soldiers the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating their meat, and shall give notice of such his desire to the commanding officer, and shall furnish and allow the same accordingly
 * The Text of the 1765 Act can be found linked within the article. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Expiry of the 1765 act
From the article:
 * For failure to comply with the Quartering Act, Parliament suspended the Province of New York's Governor and legislature in 1767 and 1769. In 1771, the New York Assembly allocated funds for the quartering of the British troops.
 * The Quartering Act was circumvented in all colonies other than Pennsylvania.
 * This act expired on March 24, 1767.

Since the Quartering Act of 1765 expired in 1767, why would Parliament suspend New York's Governor and legislature in 1769, and why would the New York Assembly allocate funds for the quartering of troops in 1771? Is the expiration date in the article wrong? --MultiPoly (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

David Ammerman
This article cites the work of the historian David Ammerman in its dismissal of the assertion that soldiers were not ever quartered in private residences. However, this claim does not seem to be widely accepted (from what I have seen), and I think that the language of the article should be changed so as to take into account this doubt. Lothar_von_Richthofen (talk) 01:26, 29 Sept 2009 (UTC)

Cmeyer8
The opening of this article is a very good summary of what the Acts were and the details are very informative. I apperciated where it specified which colonies had actually had the act circumvented, but it would be beneficial to include why Pennsylvania did not. Also some more information on the second Quartering Act could also increase the usefulness of this article. And seeing the subtitle "Quartering in time of War", sparked my interest further. If its possible, more information could be included here, or perhaps other sources to look into about this topic. Overall this article is informative, and relevant, lacking only small details that could increase its usefulness from a point of very useful to incredibly. The idea to include the modern day impacts of the acts really brings it all together and keeps a reader thinking and sets a desire to learn more about how history effects the world we now live in. Cmeyer8 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

LFriesen
The content of this article is objective and inclusive in that it covers the main points in history, but there are some sections that are confusing due to grammatical errors. For example, in the sentence below, it could be made into two sentences, because each half of the sentence addresses different parts of the Quartering Act.

These Quartering Acts were put into circulation by the Parliament of Great Britain. and they ordered local governments of the American colonies to provide a place to stay and provisions for British soldiers that were required in the area.

In the first sentence of this section, the use of provision is confusing.

It did not have the provision in the previous Act that soldiers be provided with provisions. The amendments made also created the requirement for the housing of troops to be a mutual agreement between the parties involved. Also, if a government had laws that provided troops with billets, that were approved by the crown, they did not have the Act applied to their province. Along with that, the act had similar protective guidelines to that of the Mutiny Act in Great Britain at the time. These guidelines were punishments for people who were quartered in private buildings. They were the same whether you lived in England itself or its’ colonies.

Overall, I would suggest that you proof read what you contributed. Also, it would greatly enhance this article if there was a picture. There is a respectable amount referencing and external links that support the article which is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFriesen (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Skeletonfish
-Throughout the article I noticed that there are some spelling mistakes and grammatical mistakes making the article hard to read and understand. I suggest going through the article and proof read it to get rid of the spelling errors.

-Lord Loudoun, mentioned in the second last paragraph in Quartering in the time of War, just came out abruptly and made reading the paragraph confusing. Maybe list who was was and how he was important during this time to help the flow of the paragraph and better understand his role in the Quartering.

-Other than these simple mistakes, I felt that it had a good flow and kept into the timeline of the event. Skeletonfish (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.17.254 (talk)

JedJaren
-Overall a very interesting and a well needed expansion of a Wikipedia article. Some suggestions to improve the article quality: In the opening section, expanding on the history of issues that led to the British government implicating the Quartering Acts, and the overall intentions the British government had for creating the act would add interesting content to the article. I see no mention of the Quartering Act as a tax, or the similarities to other acts that were imposed on the colonies, such as, the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, or the Sugar Act, to name a few, which together ultimately created conflict that led to the Revolutionary War. Addition of further links throughout the article, such as names like "Col. Henry Bouquet" or "Pennsylvania Assembly" and so on would enhance the sections of the article greatly. JedJaren — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedJaren (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nanner888
This article has lots of pertinent information; however there are a few things that still need some editing. The first thing I noticed was the citations. Numbers six through eleven, do not have enough information. If I was going to verify a source, I would not know where to begin to find them. The second thing I noticed was in the last line of the description it just states London. That leads me to think that it is London, England, however there are 38 London’s in the world including ones in the United States. The article seems a bit awkward and could benefit some housekeeping. I would recommend reading out loud to someone, so you are listening, but also have a second set of ears for stylistic purposes. (Nanner888 (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Quartering Acts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070806070753/http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/quartering.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/quartering.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anderson
The text in the "Quartering in time of War" section has a note that refers to "Anderson, p. 649." However, no other notes provide information on who Anderson is or what he or she wrote that provides source material. Also, the References section is likewise absence of Anderson identifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.47.164.176 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)