Talk:Quartering Acts

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

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

It would be interesting to find out when the Third Amendment has ever been used. Does anyone happen to know? – Minh Nguyễn (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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) 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WOW!!!!This page (along with the other "acts" pages) are really helpful.

Smart

Wouldn't it be a smart idea to say why they did the quartering acts? Dermato1 ^T/_C Dermato1 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, added. BradMajors 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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