In case anyone forgot, the Third Amendment reads:
"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."
So what was the manner prescribed by law that enabled some officer from taking over the house as his HQ or a surgeon using a house as a hospital? We read about it all the time where there's a battle and some general moves in.
Here's Justice Story's simple notice of the Third Amendment...
Col. Robert N. Scott's "Analytical Digest of the Military Laws of the United States" (1873) observes that to that time the Congress had not chosen to prescribe a specific manner of proceeding to billet soldiers in private houses by statute law. Consequently all such billeting of troops in war was done, when done, relative to the laws and customs of war alone.
But in conformity with the Third Amendment protections for US Citizens there were post-war laws enacted by Congress providing indemnity for use of houses as military quarters. An example...
From an 1875 schoolbook by Calvin Townsend:
But turning to the issue of the citizens south of the Mason-Dixon line, the Amendment was apparently no protection. To explain, the USA recognized the prevailing circumstances there after 1861 as a big insurrection...
And under such circumstances even the Southern non-combatants abiding the Confederacy more or less were left outside the protections of the Constitution and laws regarding property...
So relative to war, like the Third Amendment regards, the citizens of insurrectionary districts (in a civil war) were not protected by it's provision of protection by laws of Congress. A War Department explanation:
The McLean House in Appomattox was not only occupied (but not as quarters), but looted by the officers. Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure issue comes up too. Has the McLean's ever been compensated for the looting?
Apparently as a courtesy the Union officers attempted to pay Mr. McLean for his parlor furniture. General Sheridan gave him for example 20 dollars for the table used by Gen. Grant. Gen. Ord paid him 40 bucks for another, etc., but Mr. McLean is said to have balked, but the furniture was taken anyway. Says one account...
"Officers then began forcing money into McLean's hands, but McLean threw it back. Suddenly there was a rush, and the furniture was gone..."
The officers etc. made off with the stuff with or without McLean's permission. The Lieber code, G.O. no. 100, required the Army to distinguish between "loyal" and "disloyal" citizens in rebellious districts (Article 155); and the latter no matter how friendly or courteous they might have been otherwise. McLean fell under the "disloyal" category as of that time, not taken the oath of allegiance to the US, by which he might have received somewhat more respect and concern for his private property.
The McLean's were not compensated officially. But had he sought legal redress the courts might have been no great help. For example, while Mr. McLean is not known to have been a "direct" insurgent as in an armed combatant, but he was an "indirect" one, having been known to have sold supplies to the Confederate army, paid taxes to the Confederacy, etc. which might have rendered him, in the eyes of the US courts, akin a public enemy during April, 1865...
Consequently, had McLean sued in US court post-war it might have turned out as disappointing as this case...
Anyways, while US troops remained at Appomattox Courthouse, Mr. McLean apparently sold food stuffs to the US Army Quartermasters there. In the midst of his post-war financial mis-fortunes President Grant appointed him to the United States civil service.
Was the "prescribed by law" law by force of arms/might makes right/just you try to stop me/waccha gonna do 'bout it? I'm really curious if there's any relevant law.
As mentioned previously, it appears such "prescribed by law" laws were subsequently passed to indemnify the claimants where warranted and approved by Congress. Otherwise, as noted above by the War Department description, persons relative to laws about insurrection and rebellion were subject to them, and not due any indemnity.
Relative to the laws of war, as mentioned, the US forces and the Confederate forces were belligerents...
Consequently frequent "overruling military necessity" under the laws of war relative to private property fell upon the Southerners from
both armies.
Some 1870s discussion on that score of property losses in war (with some notice of quartering in houses)...
...
General Order No. 100,
The Lieber Code
Thr "for support" allows for HQ or hospitals or other military needs.
OK, Art 37 applies to "hostiles countries" but if it was a rebellion, then that isn't a hostile country is it? To apply it is a tacit admission that the Confederacy is another nation and any part of the United States.
The Lieber code, promulgated by the War Department for the government of the Armies of the United States in April, 1863, equally provides for dealing with enemies foreign
or those domestic. By the time the code was sent out to assist the Army's officers, the Supreme Court had already observed that the conflict was territorial in nature in the Prize Cases:
"It is no loose, unorganized insurrection, having no defined boundary or possession. It has a boundary marked by lines of bayonets, and which can be crossed only by force,--South of this line is enemies' territory, because it is claimed and held in possession by an organized, hostile and belligerent power."
For the United States the interior of this territorial insurrection after 1861 was "enemy" or "hostile country" relative to the laws of war, during the war...
In similar language General Sherman wrote General Halleck in late 1864...
Anyways, looking way down the list of the Lieber Code, Article 156 regards how the Army was instructed to view an insurgent domestic population, like that in the "enemy's territory" in the South which it occupied during the war...
"Common justice and plain expediency require that the military commander protect the manifestly loyal citizens, in revolted territories, against the hardships of the war as much as the common misfortune of all war admits.
The commander will throw the burden of the war, as much as lies within his power, on the disloyal citizens, of the revolted portion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police than the noncombatant enemies have to suffer in regular war; and if he deems it appropriate, or if his government demands of him that every citizen shall, by an oath of allegiance, or by some other manifest act, declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, he may expel, transfer, imprison, or fine the revolted citizens who refuse to pledge themselves anew as citizens obedient to the law and loyal to the government..."
Also, since Maryland and other states like Pennsylvania were Union, Art 37 could not be the basis for Meade or anyone else occupying a private residence uninvited.
Indeed.
Consequently, Article 38 from the Lieber code would be that relative to the people in Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc.
"Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States.
If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity."
The above only counted for loyal citizens. As mentioned, no indemnity for insurgent or disloyal ones. For example, when Sherman marched to the sea he gave orders that friendly people in that district (among the disloyal population) should be given simple "certificates of the facts" by the foraging quartermasters, to certify their cooperation,
"but no receipts."
Bringing the