Summary: No Room At The Inn

In Jamie Ford’s historical fiction Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet, this split narrative focuses on two eras: 1942 and 1986. Within these era’s, Ford’s novel focuses on a Chinese boy, Henry Lee, and what it was like to grow up in the international district with prejudice everywhere, especially in his own family being a first generation American. His novel tells the story of Henry, as well as a Japanese girl by the name of Keiko. The novel tells the story of these two young friends and the hardships faced when the government sends Keiko and her family away to the Japanese internment camps in the Northwest in the 1940’s. His novel displays the effects

When making his decision, McGregor should consider seriously the negative consequences that his business will experience if he refuses Alward’s offer to fill the motel for the two weekend nights in October, at half the room rate. If McGregor refuses, during that weekend his motel will be at his usual capacity of less than quarter full. With the church group there, paying half the rate, it will be as if the motel were half-full! In addition, if he refuses, McGregor’s reputation in the community will suffer, and he will also lose all future business from Alward’s group and other church groups, at regular price. Consequently, Justin McGregor should accept Alward’s offer but under the following two

Soon the Quartering Act was passed, directing the colonies to provide quarters for British soldiers. Americans found this oppressive because it meant that soldiers were placed in colonial homes. In 1764 Parliament passed the Stamp Act, putting a duty on most printed materials. This was a normal tax for the British as it had been going on in Britain for a long time, and it made sense that the rest of their empire would pay the same tax. This placed a burden on merchants and the colonial elite who did most legal transactions and read the newspapers. Also passed in the same year was the Declaratory Act, which stated that the colonies were subject to the will of Parliament. This made a lot of sense to the British, as Parliament was their ruling body, but, to the colonies who had become used to their own government during the years of salutory neglect, this was a direct threat to their way of life.

The novel “Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet,” written by Jamie Ford is a compelling novel about a young Chinese American boy name Henry. Henry is growing up after the Pearl Harbor incident and the start of the internment camps for Japanese Americans. Henry’s ethnicity as a Chinese American affects his childhood in being bulled in school, having a distant relationship with his parents, and causes issues with his first love Keiko, a Japanese American girl.

While the colonists had many grievances surrounding King George III the strongest grievance was his plan “To force colonist to buy English products” he had Parliament place high taxes on goods from other countries. The key word

This document countered many of the other documents that were instated as colonial law by the British. One such example would be the Quartering Act, which allowed British soldiers positioned within the colonies to be allowed in the homes of any colonist. Acts

The Quartering Act was proclaimed in 1765. The act allowed the British soldiers to live in colonist’s houses. It also allowed soldiers to eat and drink colonists’ food. The goal of the act was to keep the uprising of rebels at a low by catching them when the troops moved in, or by overhearing conversations.

Second, the Quartering Act of 1765 was an act which provided places and supplies for troops and soldiers. “The English passed the Quartering Act because it provided protection for the colonists”(Colonial Unrest). It frustrated the colonists because instead of protecting the colony the colonists felt like the troops were controlling them. Also, “It would make the colonies pay for some of the costs of having

In 1766, about 1,500 British soldiers disembarked at New York City. By law, the city had to cover the costs of housing and provisioning the soldiers. This was stated in the Quartering Act of 1765, which dictated that the colonies had to accommodate the British military personnel in local barracks, stables, inns, and uninhabited houses if necessary. At the beginning, this law did not strike any chords with the colonists, but when the New York Provincial Assembly realized the high cost involved, they assumed it as another attempt by the Crown to collect revenue from them. The saying “no taxation without representation” was used again as a type of trigger again and the city refused to cover the accommodation expenses.

The Quartering act was a set of laws forcing colonists to allow British troops to stay in their homes,

The 1765 Quartering Act was placed on the American Colonies of Britain on March 24, 1765. It mandated that British soldiers and officers were to be accommodated in barracks in the town or city that they were situated in. The act itself stated that the town or city would be notified beforehand so as to have time to prepare for the housing of the soldiers. Under the circumstance that any officer was found to be housing on their own accord and not on the townspeople’s then that officer would then be punished. There would be no compensation for housing the soldiers and they would also have to provide the soldiers with necessities of that time including food, liquor and salt. However if there wasn’t enough housing for all of the soldiers in the barracks only then would they be housed in public houses of the likes of local inns and wine houses. The act was to be held for a total of two years where at that time it would then be adjusted.

The Quartering Act of 1765 is directly relevant to Chapter 6. It is relevant to Chapter 6 because it is a response to the huge war debt against an already strained budget. George III’s main priority was that he wanted to maintain the size of the army. The colonists were not the biggest fans of this army. The Quartering Act (1765) was one of four pieces of legislation that forced the colonies and colonists to contribute and help with the upkeep of the large army(Oakes et al., 2015, pg. 167).

By 1765, at a Stamp Act Congress, all but four colonies were represented as the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” was passed. They were determined to let Parliament know that they were equal to British citizens, that there would be no “taxation without representation,” and all efforts to stop tax on colonists would continue (Kennedy, etal 2011.) Although Lord Rockingham, the predecessor of Grenville, sought to repeal of the Stamp Act, this in no way meant Parliament was conceding their control. In fact, while the Stamp Act was repealed, another called the “Declaratory Act of 1766,” gave Parliament the authority to make laws binding the American Colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.” In 1767, George III passed the Townshend Acts to collect tax on glass, lead, paints, paper and, tea. Recognizing that tea was a favorite among the Americans, it ensured greater revenue the British government. Again, the colonists’ rights for representation were ignored and they started to boycott British goods and ultimately, smuggle tea. When the Quartering Act was passed, which specified that colonists were to give room and board to British troops, tension began to rise. For two years, the colonists tolerated British troops on their soil and their dissatisfaction with the British Parliament and King George III became evident through many violent riots, abusiveness of tax collectors and destruction of property. According to Kennedy, etal (2011), Parliament, continually met with

James Otis also denied Parliament the right to tax the colonies in his work “Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved”. His claims are based on his understanding of the English rights, the English constitutional law protected all people whether they are at home or abroad from tyranny. One of the most important English liberties was the protection from internal taxation without representation. Otis is stating that any acts of Parliament that violate the English law shouldn’t be allowed in the colonies.

Otis was opposed of the Writs that he compared it to slavery. Otis explained that no matter in what situation, even if he was paid a price or not, there was absolutely no way he was going to agree with what the British officials explained in the Writs of Assistance. Otis compared the Writs to slavery because they had no rights, and the colonists homes would be broken into by the British officials even if the colonist were in no harm at all. It was all because of suspicion. Also Otis made threats to the british explaining that the King’s had been beheaded ot lost their power of King for going against the rights of citizens. Otis implied that if the Writs took place that the same could happen to them. In addition, Otis also implied that the