Why the Rush?

[Kudu]

For all of his faults, James West deserves more credit for bringing the Patrol Method back to the United States. It was West who in 1923 introduced the Patrol Method in a booklet (and appendix to subsequent printings of the 2nd Edition of the Handbook for Scoutmasters). Three years later, it was West who recognized William Hillcourt's expertise in the European "Patrol System," hired him, and backed his implementation of the BSA's "Patrol Method" with the full force of West's office.

 

Kahuna writes:

 

It's funny, given that Scouting in the U.S. as well as Britain was in part started by boys forming patrols on their own, that the boy leadership principle was so late in coming along.

 

But what could they do? The new Scouting monopoly imposed the new all-American "Six Principles of Boy Work" (including "Grouping Standards") on its members and hyped it as "scientifically correct" and the "doubtless standard of all groupings in the future."

 

Traditionalists see a similar pattern today where the Patrol Method is undercut by imposing modern "Leadership Development" theories on it. The BSA's monopoly on Scouting insures that leadership theory fed by six month election cycles and "Position of Responsibility" requirements is the "fifty-six and a half inches in height" standard of our own day.

 

Under James West this destruction of the Patrol Method by popular "scientific" theories had been reversed with an innovative new model called the "Six Methods of Scouting" introduced in William Hillcourt's 4th Edition of the Handbook for Scoutmasters.

 

The first Method of Scouting was pure Baden-Powell: "The Scout Way: A Game NOT a Science."

 

The five other Methods were the Patrol Method (under which Leadership significantly was only a subset); Men in Scouting; Activities (under which Advancement --equally significantly-- was only a subset); Uniform; and Ideals & Service.

 

The First Method of Scouting lasted until after the retirement of West and Hillcourt, when "A Game NOT a Science" was cancelled in 1972 to make way for a new scientific theory of Scouting called Leadership Development.

 

Green Bar Bill's "Patrol Leader Training" course was destroyed to make room for Leadership Development's new "Junior Leader Training" which told Patrol Leaders that "as a patrol or troop leader you're going to learn what [leadership skills] are in a more scientific manner" (emphasis added).

 

Likewise, the newly elevated "Advancement Method" of 1972 would eventually destroy the Patrol Method in summer camp as modern school class schedules and school cafeteria central dining rooms became the norm under the new "Seven Methods of Scouting" which claimed that the "Seven Methods" were all of "equal importance." See:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/index.htm

 

emb021 writes:

 

What a boooring work. Dull, dull, dull.

 

Perhaps the first Handbook for Scout Masters is significantly more interesting to those of us who see the history of Scouting as repeating itself rather than progressing in a straight line

 

Also of interest in the first Handbook for Scout Masters are the origins of BSA Advancement which (like the Six Principles of Boy Work) had aspects that were the exact opposite of Baden-Powell's central principles of Scouting: It was based on adult power over the Patrol Leaders, and on book-learning over the "citizenship-training as a game" form of English Scouting. See for instance the central written exams approach to Advancement (Scoutmasters were not even trusted to test their own Scouts--which should have been the PL's job):

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/064-Scout_Exams.htm

 

The underling Scouting-as-school theory was never corrected and would later become institutionalized as the "Adult Association" Method of Scouting (Scoutmaster Conferences, Boards of Review, and Scout Spirit requirements), and the boooring, dull, dull, dull (and therefore required!) book learning Merit Badges such as Environmental Science and the three Citizenship badges.

 

Kudu

[Kahuna]

All of which goes to show that we don't necessarily get smarter as we get older. Our beloved government certainly hasn't.

But what could they do?

They, being the ones who controlled the movement of the time, just as those who control it at this time could disregard the psychobabble and go for the B-P methods as refined in the U.S. by GBB. Bill used to say that of all games played on a large scale by youth, Scouting was the only one designed just for boys. Little League, Pop Warner Football, etc, are all played on adapted rules and scaled down playing fields. Scouting was designed to be boy-size.

Likewise, the newly elevated "Advancement Method" of 1972 would eventually destroy the Patrol Method in summer camp as modern school class schedules and school cafeteria central dining rooms became the norm

I guess you are referring to the elimination in most camps of patrol method cooking in the campsite, along with the addition of merit badge class scheduling. Merit badge classes go way back, we were doing those in the early 1960's and I have mixed feelings about campsite cooking. When I was an SM, we camped every month and usually went on a 50 Miler or other heavy duty outdoor activity yearly. So, we went to summer camp to have fun and earn merit badges. I found that, in Florida, the difficulty of doing 3 meals a day in camp (or even 2 in camps that served lunch), especially in the summer heat was not worth the trouble for my troops. However, I will say that in two cases, it was worth the effort. In one case, I took over a troop that had been adult run with central cooking and in another it was a new troop that had only been around for a little over a year. Those kids really found out how to cook, clean up and get out in a hurry and in the process they found out who the boys were that were able to really lead.

So, I recommend that kind of summer camp experience in those circumstances (and more so in cooler climes ). In my case, I would seek out summer camps in the mountains or up north - we went all the way to Camp Owassippe one summer - or at least air conditioned dining halls.

[epalmer84]

If you are looking for the context behind the origins of the BSA, then I recommend:

 

Macleod, David L. (1983). Building Character in the American Boy: The Boy Scouts, YMCA and Their Forerunners, 18701920. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-09400-6.

 

This gives the background of the progressive movement in the U.S. around the beginning of the twentieth century. The BSA was the right program at the right time.

 

Ed Palmer

[Bob White]

Consider this...Boyce and Hearst were both publishers, and the Baden-Powell's "Scouting for Boys" was the runaway best-seller in all of Europe.

 

If you were a publisher in the US wouldn't you be looking for the rights to print it here?

 

There were dozens of regional youth programs across the country based on woods crafts or indian lore or the like. By consolidating them into a single organization it would give them and even larger consumer base to sell their version of the book to. Each tried to start a single organization. Hearst had enemies in congress and Boyce did not. Boyce was able to get Congress to recognize his BSA rather than Hearst's version. Boyce had B-pPs support, Hearst did not.

 

Neither was concerned with the philanthropic betterment of the lives or paperboys. It was simply a business decision for them. They were publishers, it was a popular book, and we were a country filled with youth.

 

If you are looking for the people who were the spiritual heart of the fledgling BSA that would be folks like B-P, Seton, and Beard.

 

 

[emb021]

"Consider this...Boyce and Hearst were both publishers, and the Baden-Powell's "Scouting for Boys" was the runaway best-seller in all of Europe."

 

If so, why did Boyce never publish any BSA materials?

 

No idea about Hearst.

 

"Hearst had enemies in congress and Boyce did not. Boyce was able to get Congress to recognize his BSA rather than Hearst's version. Boyce had B-pPs support, Hearst did not."

 

Keep in mind that Hearst disassociated himself with the American Boy Scout org early on. We're talking about 1911 or 12. Boyce had, AFAIK, little to do with the effort to get Congress to give the BSA a charter.

 

"Neither was concerned with the philanthropic betterment of the lives or paperboys. It was simply a business decision for them. They were publishers, it was a popular book, and we were a country filled with youth."

 

I would disagree with that in regards to Boyce. I think Boyce DID have in mind the betterment of his paperboys. This seems clear to me from reading his bio.

 

"If you are looking for the people who were the spiritual heart of the fledgling BSA that would be folks like B-P, Seton, and Beard."

 

No argument there.

[Bob White]

But did you know that Boyce also stopped his $1000 a month financial support of the BSA after a falling out with West just a few years after the program began, and he started a new program called Lone Scouts which later was absorbed into the BSA?

 

That Boyce saw much good in the scouting movement for the benefit of Youth is not in question. But the meeting in the fog is more legend than fact and it is no coincidence that the nations top two publishers "found" the scouting program (which at the time was growing all over Eurpope thankis to the sales of B-P's book) at the same time, and each fought to have their version recognized as the official one.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[emb021]

"But did you know that Boyce also stopped his $1000 a month financial support of the BSA after a falling out with West just a few years after the program began, and he started a new program called Lone Scouts which later was absorbed into the BSA?"

 

Boyce actually stopped his $1000 before West came along. That was an issue that Robinson actually worked on, and while it was resolved briefly, he (or his agents) stopped it again.

 

Am not aware of any falling out between West and Boyce. Source?

 

Am fully aware of the history of the Lone Scout program. Boyce established the program mainly because he felt the BSA program requiring at least 8-boy patrols, was leaving out the rural boys (who were his main source of newsboys around the mid-west. His papers were sold in rural communities) out. Hence he established the LSA. When he couldn't handle the costs, he turned it over to the BSA.

 

"That Boyce saw much good in the scouting movement for the benefit of Youth is not in question. But the meeting in the fog is more legend than fact and it is no coincidence that the nations top two publishers "found" the scouting program (which at the time was growing all over Eurpope thankis to the sales of B-P's book) at the same time, and each fought to have their version recognized as the official one."

 

True, the meeting in the fog is more legend then fact.

 

I don't know if I would call Boyce one of the nation's top publishers.

 

And I think you give too much credit to Hearst being a founder of scouting in the US. Hearst apparently only got into the scouting game because of Boyce's involvement. I bet if Boyce had not gotten involved (or if no major newspaper publisher had gotten involved to the same degree), he would never have bothered.

 

Hearst's involvement was brief. So speaking of them 'fighting it out' I think is misplaced. Boyce's involvement was more behind the scenes.

 

Boyce established the BSA, and give it $1000 a month. That was the extent of his involvement. It was thus left to others (Robinson et al) to take it on (take it over) and really turn it into a scouting program. Boyce really didn't bother to get re-involved in scouting until he later decided to establish the LSA. And again with that group, left it to others to run.

 

Hearst's involvement was to establish the American Boy Scout, which, like with Boyce, he turned over to others to run. Within a year of doing so, he disassociated himself from that group, denouncing them in his papers. If he was that big a supporting of scouting, why did he not just take back the group or the like. This ended the involment of Hearst in scouting.

 

Did either Hearst or Boyce publishing ANY Scouting-related publications in the 1910-15 period. AFAIK, they didn't. Boyce only started to publishing scouting related stuff with the LSA (Lone Scout newspaper and their booklets).

 

It was left to others to publish stuff like Boys Life, the handbooks and the like.

 

[Kahuna]

I tend to agree with emb021 on Boyce. His disagreement with West and founding of the Lone Scout movement had to do with the fact that he strongly felt that the BSA was not doing enough for rural boys. It's true, he did profit from Lone Scouts through the magazine for them and the fact that it was a source of recruitment for magazine and paper sellers for his publications. He spent a good deal of his own money on the establishment, too.

 

His monetary contributions to the BSA were far more than just the thousand a month. He covered all the office expenses, no limit, for several years and made other contributions.

 

Boyce wasn't involved in the congressional charter effort at all and, in fact, it ran counter to his interest at the time as it pretty much made the merger between BSA and Lone Scouting inevitable, according to his biographer.

 

I don't know what was in his mind when he brought back the handbook from England and incorporated the BSA, but he certainly was willing to cooperate with Robinson et al in forming the national organization without profit to himself.

[Bob White]

In a stern letter to the BSA, Boyce stopped his $1000 a month contributions to the BSA around 1915 asking them not to contact him for further contributions stating that it was not his intention to fund a national program but simply to bring the Scout handbook to youth in the US.

 

No one disputes that Boyce played a role in bringing scouting to the US, a recognition still afforded him by the BSA along with other key individuals.

 

The question was "why the rush" at that particular time in history, and one cannot fail to recognize that the two people most prominent in trying to get the program started here were competing publishers, and that Baden-Powell's book was a best-seller at the time.

[emb021]

"In a stern letter to the BSA, Boyce stopped his $1000 a month contributions to the BSA around 1915 asking them not to contact him for further contributions stating that it was not his intention to fund a national program but simply to bring the Scout handbook to youth in the US."

 

Ok. My response to that would be to ask what, if anything, Boyce did to get the Scout Handbook published? Did he publish or fund the publishing of either B-P's handbook or an american boy scout handbook? AFAIK, no he didn't. It was left up to the BSA to publish, AFAIK without any assistance from Boyce, the first american boy scout handbooks.

 

Yes, Boyce established the BSA and funded their office, but then left them to their own devices.

 

"No one disputes that Boyce played a role in bringing scouting to the US, a recognition still afforded him by the BSA along with other key individuals."

 

No disagreement with that.

 

What I do have a disagreement with is when I encounter people who try to give Boyce more credit then he really deserves (my prior comments about people on other forums making claims as if Boyce was activily involved with the running of the BSA, instead of it being people like Robinson, West, etc)

 

"The question was "why the rush" at that particular time in history, and one cannot fail to recognize that the two people most prominent in trying to get the program started here were competing publishers, and that Baden-Powell's book was a best-seller at the time."

 

Sorry, but again, I have a problem with Hearst being considered 'prominent in trying to get the program started here'. AFAIK, he did little, even less then Boyce, to get Scouting going. Hearst, to me, is a johnny come lately, more doing so because Boyce was involved. He seems to have been involved with scouting for maybe a year, and that's it.

 

Even with Boyce I have a problem with him being credited with geting the program started. The program was getting going on its own without him, what with people forming their own patrols or troops. What he *did* do was establish an organization (the BSA) which others took to establish the true US national scouting organization/program.

 

Yes, Boyce deserves the credit he does. But he should not be given credit that rightfully belongs to others (Robinson or West or whoever). And certainly Hearst should not be credited for more then he really did. AFAIC, Hearst is a minor figure, a footnote, in the history of establishing scouting in the US.

[Bob White]

Hearst is a footnote because his venture lost and the other teanm one. Had circumstances been different and the scouting program that Hearst was backing come out on top then it would be Boyce who was the footnote.

 

It can be easily argued that no one person is responsible for the founding of the BSA nor doid it just spring up over night. It tokk a few yeqars a number of talented and dedicated people to create the foundation that today's BSA has built upon over the decades.

 

Was Boyce the "most" important? Perhaps, and perhaps not, it would appear that from 1910 to 1916 you have to agree that at least 5 main characters were involved.

Baden-Powell; who developed the original program.

Boyce; who incorporated it in the USA, and provided the original funding

Seton; who developed the advancement program, created the merit badge program, wrote "edited" the first handbook and was the first Chief Scout of the BSA.

Beard: who developed much of the outdoor program for the BSA

West: who created the chartered organization concept and developed the council structure, as well as was instrumental in the congressional charter.

 

I agree that Robinson's role was important, but one of the reasons why he is seldom mentioned is that he was only involved for the first year. Once he replaced himself with his friend James West, Robinson returned to his work with the YMCA, and so few people were aware of his contributions to the scouting movement.

 

Why the rush? Because it was a very popular program throughout Europe.

[emb021]

"Hearst is a footnote because his venture lost and the other teanm one. Had circumstances been different and the scouting program that Hearst was backing come out on top then it would be Boyce who was the footnote."

 

Well, it goes deeper then that.

 

We have little info on what Hearst intended for his group. He established it and turned it over to others, who turned out to be the wrong people.

 

In contrast, Robinson got just about everyone involved in 'boys work' involved with the BSA. That made the BSA a much stronger group. Hearst was given the chance to join in, but choice not to. I think had he joined in, and had he been more involved, he could have been a more important figure. Instead he went independent, then compounded this by allowing his group to go bad.

 

"It can be easily argued that no one person is responsible for the founding of the BSA nor doid it just spring up over night. It tokk a few yeqars a number of talented and dedicated people to create the foundation that today's BSA has built upon over the decades."

 

Totally agree. You list about all the important figures in making the BSA what it is.

 

"Was Boyce the "most" important? Perhaps, and perhaps not, it would appear that from 1910 to 1916 you have to agree that at least 5 main characters were involved."

 

I agree he's amoung the important main figures at the time.

 

"I agree that Robinson's role was important, but one of the reasons why he is seldom mentioned is that he was only involved for the first year. Once he replaced himself with his friend James West, Robinson returned to his work with the YMCA, and so few people were aware of his contributions to the scouting movement."

 

Yes, but even there, what he did was important. He was responsible for taking over the moribund organization established by Boyce, getting all those important people really involved (Seton and Beard were not involved, etc), and getting them to hire a real exec sec in West (not aware that they were friends).

 

I think he's too often ignored due to his brief involvement, but IMO what he did during that brief period was critical.

 

After all, Robinson DID get Silver Buffalo #8.

 

 

 

[Miki101]

This thread has gone in a very interesting direction. However, I would hate for facts to get in the way of a good story.

 

Boyce was in London in 1909 when the "fog" hit. Supposedly it was in August. I have also heard July. Boyce never mentioned it until his telling in a Lone Scout Magazine article in 1915. There is a telling by an eyewitness many years later mentioning December. The London weather record for the Savoy area indicated 1 day of fog in his area on December 21. BP was not in London at that time. Boyce supposedly got on a steamer within a day or two and traveled back to the US. Noting the trip time and since I know the name of the ship, it left from England on or around December 23 and docked in New York Harbor on December 30, where it stayed in quarantine until the following day. THEREFORE: the fog story CANNOT be certifiably ruled out and "Boyce's Scouting" came to the US in 1909 NOT 1910.

 

After returning to Chicago, Boyce attempted to start a unit. It failed and he refused to put any more money into it. When Robinson, Van Dis, and Doggett visited him on May 3,1910 it was a lot cheaper for him to write a $1000 check and be rid of it because he was not getting enough boys interested in the program. The YMCA could. He pledged $1000 per month at that meeting.

 

On May 10, Boyce, Seton, Robinson, Heald and Wakefield testified in front of a cogresssional committee in an attempt to gain a national incorporation. It failed. Boyce had now washed his hands of the organization despite his pledge to give $1000 a month.

 

Boyce did not make a June, July, August, September or October payment. He did not do so because his business partner, William Hunter, did not write the check. Boyce was away traveling until October. Robinson, with the order to get money, visited Hunter and was told that no more money would be forthcoming because Hunter declared that the BSA was not using the publicity photos that Boyce had provided them. He intimated that the BSA was willing to take Boyce's money without any credit.

 

My facts come from papers in the BSA Archive as well as Robinson own letters from various other archives.

 

For Boyce, this was a pure self-propmotion opportunity - starting with his Africa trip - in an attempt to show-up Theodore Roosevelt's safari because Boyce intended to photograph the animals that TR killed. He failed because the equipment did not work. There are other repurcussions in this story but you'll have to wait for my other book, The Scouting Party, to come out next year, which will lay out this whole drama.

 

David C. Scott

[emb021]

I look forward to seeing this new book. That's one thing I hope will come out of the 2010 celebration: new books on our history, and much needed reprints of others.

 

As I understand it, Boyce was introduced to scouting in 1909, and setup the BSA in February of 1910 and really didn't do anything (as you note). Robinson et al came around in May of that year, and started work to take on the org.

 

Am aware of the money issues from reading Boyce's bio.

 

A John Alexander was the first managing secretary (what is today called a executive secretary or executive director) from May to October of 1910. Robinson then became the second thru the end of the year, afterwhich West took over the position.

 

It was during 1910 the Robinson brought on board all the other people who made the BSA what it would be.

 

[emb021]

This page at Wikipedia gives a good overview history of the BSA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America

 

Amoung other things, it mentions several of the orgs that were merged into the BSA. Many are fairly unknown apart from their name. Many of their founders were given positions in the BSA, but soon dropped out.

 

What is unsaid is what was going on at the BSA office from its incorporation in Feb 1910 and when John Alexander became managing secretary in June of 1910. That about four months.