Skip to main content

This Day in History: March 24

On this day in 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which detailed conditions and locations in which British soldiers were to garner 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 livery stables, ale houses, local inns, victualing houses, and the homes of sellers of wine. Should there still be soldiers without accommodation after all such public houses were filled, the colonies were then required to utilize uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings for said purpose.

As the language of the act specifies, 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 exhorted to provide quarter for British troops; they preferred to be asked and then provide their consent. Thus, they refused to comply with the law, and in 1767, Parliament passed the New York Restraining Act, which forbade 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, 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 side by side with Patriots, were soon involved in street brawls and then the Boston Massacre of 1770. The British soldiers would stay in Boston until George Washington drove them out with the Continental Army in 1776.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you have Isolophilia? Find out...

You're probably asking yourself, "What in the world does Isolophilia mean?" It sounds like it would be something negative, doesn't it?  After all, words that end in "philia" (e.g., pedophilia) tend to involve things we want nothing to do with. But Isolophilia isn't something all people deplore. In fact, introverts like me welcome it. Put simply, Isolophilia is defined as having a strong affinity for solitude. It describes a person who relishes being alone. While extroverts can only take so much solitude, we introverts find that it rejuvenates us. In order to recharge our batteries, we need to retreat to a quiet environment where we we're left alone to rest and/or gather our thoughts. Extroverts, on the other hand, become bored and drained when they're alone for a lengthy period of time. Social interaction is the fuel that drives them. So while an extrovert would probably do anything to avoid feelings of Isolophilia in most cases, an...

No response from someone IS a response

Make no mistake about it: When you don't get a response from someone -- whether they fail to answer your texts or return your phone calls -- it is  still a response, and a powerful one at that. When a person fails to respond, it's a direct reflection of their interest -- or lack thereof -- in the relationship. Few things are more aggravating than having to hound a partner, friend, or relative for some sort of reply after we've reached out to them. Yes, we get busy from time to time, but that doesn't give anyone the right to leave the other person hanging. A terse text with something like "Been busy, will reach out soon" doesn't say much, but at least it shows some effort to bring the other person up to speed on why they've fallen off the radar. Failing to provide a response for weeks -- if not months -- communicates that you are just not a priority, and that you'll have to wait your turn to get this individual's attention. This is n...

An important note to women about men and attraction

I was raised by my mom, grandma, and two older sisters.  Growing up, never did I ever take any interest in the girls at school who tended toward exposing more skin. I always treated them as I would my female family members -- with the utmost courtesy and respect.  And anytime I suspected that a male friend or acquaintance of mine adopted a hump-and-dump attitude toward women, I nixed them from my life. I held men who treated women as objects in very low regard, and still do to this day. If women feel empowered to show off their bodies because they love and work hard on their physique, more power to them. In other words, if they're doing it to please THEMSELVES and no one else, good for them.  However, those who do it specifically to curry men's favor are making a big mistake. It sends the wrong signals and actually makes it less likely that a man will want to stick around for a committed relationship (if that's what you want as anyway).  Granted, if you're not lookin...