Give No Quarter
The History of the Third Amendment to the US Constitution
The Third Amendment is not the most famous or popular amendment. In fact, people frequently argue it is outdated or pointless because it is virtually never invoked by citizens against the government. Lawsuits related to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are filed constantly and fought over in state and federal courts. The Third Amendment is only rarely invoked and usually against police rather than the military, as originally intended.
Before going further, we should look at the text of the amendment. “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.” One must then ask, “What does quartering mean?” Merriam-Webster defines it as “living accommodations” while Dictionary.com defines it as “to take up, or be in quarters; lodge.” In this specific context it means to house soldiers, particularly in private homes or buildings.
If you are not a student of history, you may wonder why this was so important to the Founders to become the third amendment added to the new constitution. The answer comes in three parts: historical, legal, and cultural. English law, later absorbed into British law, had a long-standing prohibition against the forced housing of soldiers in private homes dating to 1628. This had been abused by Charles I, who would later be deposed and beheaded by Parliament. The law later developed to ban standing (i.e. permanent) armies in peacetime without the consent of Parliament. At this point, the legal arguments begin to meet historical and cultural arguments. After the initial acts by Charles I, Charles II, and James II, the issue was largely resolved by legislation and the Glorious Revolution in England. It would later be disputed whether this applied to the colonies or only England proper. The Glorious Revolution (1688-1689) is a complicated story, but for our purposes the important thing is that parliamentary supremacy was confirmed and England permanently rejected absolute monarchy. Issues reappeared during the French and Indian War (aka Seven Years War, 1754-1763) because large numbers of British troops appeared in the American Colonies for the first time.
The British government expected the troops to quarter in private homes to defray the costs of the war. Not only did private citizens refuse, but the colonial legislatures protested on their behalf. The problem was temporarily avoided by the British Army paying to quarter their soldiers in Inns and other paid lodging. However, there were not sufficient quarters available and it was causing a financial strain on the Army. This was one of the most expensive wars fought to that point and Britain went deeply in debt. Each outlay was scrutinized. This was an ongoing disagreement over years with British officers feeling the colonial insistence on their rights disregarded what they owed to the government for their protection. The issue was never completely resolved.
In 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act which required colonial legislatures to pay for housing British soldiers who would now be permanently stationed in the colonies after the conclusion of the French and Indian War. The law expired in 1767, but caused anger, particularly in New York, which would refuse to pay until 1771. The Aftermath of the Boston Tea Party (1773) saw a more substantial garrison stationed in Boston. In addition, Parliament passed the Quartering Act which required colonial legislatures again to pay for housing British soldiers. This was one of many sources of anger in Boston during the early 1770s. The colonists were mad not only that they were forced to pay for quartering and that some soldiers quartered in private buildings, but that there was a standing army in peacetime. As we discussed earlier, this was not allowed in Britain and the colonists did not feel it was legally allowed in their colonies either. This was a very different world and a different army than what we are used to.
In this strange past, there were no police and soldiers were sometimes used for what we might now consider policing. Crime was primarily solved and punished only after the fact by purely civilian authorities. British citizens were not used to having armed agents of the government around on a regular basis. Furthermore, the army was not full of young people dedicated to service as we often view the current US Armed Forces. The British Army consisted undoubtedly of some good people but also a large collection of thieves, ruffians, criminals, and even worse. British officers felt the only way to control them was constant flogging. Sometimes their descriptions almost sounded like wild animals and the colonists did not have a substantially better view of soldiers. They were also viewed with suspicion because their careers tied themselves only to government and they were held apart from regular civilian life. They were considered necessary during wartime but were not wanted around during the peace. They were viewed as not only a physical danger but a threat to liberty. This view was only reinforced by the Boston Massacre, Lexington and Concord, the Siege of Boston, and ongoing threats of indiscriminate bombardment of American Cities. In fact, the British Army had an extremely contentious relationship with Americans, including loyalists and neutral parties, throughout the remainder of the war. Americans were less suspicious of the Continental Army because it was made up of average citizens who had lives outside the army and were naturally considered more concerned with rights. Even then, the Army was largely disbanded after 1783 and the soldiers returned to their private, civilian lives.
But after the war, the Articles of Confederation, the first federal constitution of the United States, were found to be inadequate. They did not allow Congress to raise taxes, permitted civil violence such as Shay’s Rebellion, and led to the states passing laws which harmed the entire union such as tariffs and the rejection of other states’ currency. A critical mass decided the articles needed to be amended and some even favored the adoption of an entirely new constitution. A delegation met in 1787 to amend the articles but did propose an entirely new constitution with substantially expanded but still limited and enumerated powers. There was much skepticism of a stronger national government, but it was passed by the required number of states and took effect in 1788 with the first federal politicians taking office in 1789. The Constitution already limited the Army. It could not be funded for more than two years at a time. The Congress must declare war and the President, a civilian, would be the head of the military. The Constitution also left the appointment of militia officers to the state governments. It provided for the militia being used for federal service, further limiting the need for a standing army. However, as part of ratifying the new constitution, Anti-Federalists in a number of states demanded a bill of rights be passed to further limit the federal government. In 1791, James Madison, who wrote much of the original constitution also proposed these amendments. The amendment which concerns us was eventually passed and ratified as the third.
To limit peacetime armies and protect private citizens from providing for them, the amendment banned quartering in private homes except in a time of war. Even then, the popularly-elected house of congress would get to limit how this would apply.
That is the story of the Third Amendment, as irrelevant as it may now seem. The law and culture of the United States strongly opposed any standing armies which was only magnified by the quartering and behavior of British soldiers before and during the Revolution. Subsequent wars would show the same thing, either militias would be used, or the United States Army would be only temporarily expanded: The War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, Banana Wars, and World War II all held to this pattern. The United States Army would be very limited in size during peacetime and rely heavily on state militias through the beginning of World War II. A suspicion of standing armies and reticence to pay for an army remained a part of American Culture until the post-war period when the threat of the Soviet Union led to a cultural change. The Third Amendment, when passed, was considered every bit as important to preserving liberty and avoiding government tyranny as the other amendments. It is only the remarkable success of the amendment and a changing culture which led to our current view of the amendment as irrelevant.
Sources:
Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005.
Amar, Akhil Reed. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2998
Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. New York: Vintage Books, 2000.
Daughan, George C. Lexington and Concord: The Battle Heard Round the World. New York: W/W/ Norton and Company, 2018.
Lepore, Jill. These Truths: A History of the United States. Revised Edition. New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 2018.
Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007
Parliament of England. “Petition of Right.” Wikisource. Accessed October 10, 2023. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Petition_of_Right.
Parliament of England. “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.” The Avalon Project. Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale Law School. Accessed October 10, 2023. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp.
Philbrick, Nathaniel. Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution. New York: Penguin Books, 2013.