Mr. Boyce Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 In reading over scouting history, I'm left wondering why. . . all of a sudden. . . great numbers of men are rushing around trying to set up scouting organizations. Why the rush? In the case of Boyce, it seems there was some economic connection to his publication: boys were newspaper sellers and carriers. The same may be the case for Hearst. Any clarity on this appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emb021 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not sure exactly what you mean. Boyce's connection seems clear. He did have an interest in boys of that age. Probably more so then other newspapers, his relayed on all those newsboys selling his papers. So Scouting seemed a natural to him, which also lead him to establish the Lone Scouts. Hearst, it seems to me, weren't so noble. He saw the BSA as nothing more then an extension of Boyce papers, which I think was incorrect. He was asked to joined the flegling BSA that was clearly setting up afterwards under the leadership of Robinson. Not sure what you mean by these "great numbers of men are rushing around trying to set up scouting organizations." Few of the various rival Scouting orgs in the US were really National groups. Most were really local/regional, and I think most were done because these people read B-P work and decided to setup a group, unaware that others were doing the same. Other groups were obviously tying in their scouting work with already existing programs (such as the forest scouts that were more focused on stopping forest fires in one state) and the like. It was only the Hearst-backed group that really went bad, such that Hearst dumped them (why he didn't just shut them down I have no idea). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Timing is everything in history. In the first decade of the 20th Century, urbanization was beginning to show its' effect on youth: juvenile delinquency was becoming a problem and increasing numbers of boys were less healthy than they had been when they lived on farms. Seton and Beard had already begun organizations to instill character and a love of the outdoors in boys. It was simply a thing of the times. Boys were also ready for some kind of organization that was theirs alone. Both Boyce and Hearst had some economic motives, but both were businessmen who understood that somebody would incorporate the organization and that probably the sooner the better. Boyce had no problem in giving away his corporation (along with a lot of his own money) to Robinson, Seton, Beard and the others who eventually became the backbone of the BSA. Hearst's organization was much more militaristic and not as much in line with B-P's vision. Of course, that vision was partially shaped by Beard's and Seton's organizations, so logically they would be more of his thinking. Boyce had obtained verbal permission from the British Scouts Association to use material from B-P's book, so long as it was for a nonprofit cause. Perhaps he felt that incorporating sooner rather than later would make it easier to publish a handbook in the US. Primarily, I think that, since scouts (based on Scouting for Boys) and other boys organizations were springing up all over, all these men: Boyce, Robinson, Seton, Beard and probably Hearst felt the time was ripe to organize. When West came on board, he and the others immediately began to seek congressional protection of the name, badges, uniforms, books and other attributes of Scouting. It took a few years to work its way through congress, as everything does, but if they hadn't started when they did, they could have lost a lot of momentum. I don't so much think of it as a rush as a motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudu Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 According to Tim Jeal's chapter on the publishing business aspect of Boy Scouting and its initial control of Scouting in England, Arthur Pearson (B-P's publisher) was described by Joseph Chamberlain as "the greatest hustler I have ever known." The connection to newspapers was that Boy Scouting sold periodicals. The irony of Hearst's militaristic "American Boy Scout" organization was that it was affiliated with Sir Frances Vane's "Order of World Scouts" (which predated WOSM by 11 years). Vane's "British Boy Scouts" had broken away from Baden-Powell's association in part because B-P's brand of centrally controlled Scouting was perceived as too closely involved with military organizations. According to the BSA's own version of history, "Soon after the publication of Scouting for Boys, Boy Scout Troops began to spring up all over the United States. Local churches, military schools, and other youth organizations such as the YMCA often sponsored them. Some of these sponsoring organizations had further aspirations of forming national Scouting movements, and by 1910 these included the publisher William R. Hearst's "American Boy Scout" (later the "United States Boy Scout"); the National Highway Protection Association's "Boy Scouts of the United States;" "The Peace Scouts of California;" the "National Scouts of America," formed by a military school in Manlius, NY; and "The YMCA Scouts" (Murray, William; The History of the Boy Scouts of America; page 28; Boy Scouts of America; New York; 1937). To me the great unknown in the history of Scouting is if Robinson had not been able to turn Boyce's fledgling group into a rigid monopoly on Scouting in the United States, would any of the five rival national Scouting movements been based on Baden-Powell's Patrol System? The "Patrol Method" was not introduced to the BSA until September 21, 1923. Kudu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew21_Adv Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Mr Boyce and fellow Scouters, Greetings! I concur with the answers already provided by our fellow Scouters. To offer my opinion..... Finances will always be a part of any organization. Churches are dependent on tithing, public schools are dependent on state taxes, private clubs are dependent on membership fees and dues. Even Red Cross charges fees to teach you First Aid and (waterfront) Lifesaving or "Life Guards". My opinion. Finances had to be in Scouting from the beginning (as with any other organization). But finances was not the primary motivator. Otherwise, Scouting would be "slave labor factories" with child labor during school hours. Economic reasons were a means to support the program cost of Scouting. "Great numbers of men are rushing around trying to set up scouting organizations. Why the rush?" These men, the initial founders and many other business men saw a need. Even today, I can drive thru my neighborhood, walk thru the mall, pick up my children from school and I see a need for Scouting. Scouting did not have all the social answers in the early 20th Century, but it did have many answers, and satisfied many needs. Again my opinion. But, I truly believe that was why great numbers of men rushed to set up Scouting organizations. Scouting Forever and Venture On! Crew21 Adv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emb021 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 "The irony of Hearst's militaristic "American Boy Scout" organization was that it was affiliated with Sir Frances Vane's "Order of World Scouts" (which predated WOSM by 11 years). Vane's "British Boy Scouts" had broken away from Baden-Powell's association in part because B-P's brand of centrally controlled Scouting was perceived as too closely involved with military organizations." Yes, this is something I noticed years ago. Since there is little info/history on the ABS group, its hard to understand why they joine with the OWS and what that meant. (I believe they were really only part of it for a brief time, and later leaders were totally ignorant of the OWS). And it seems to me that the ABS seems to have become more militant, as witnessed in the names they adopted after the BSA sued them: American Cadets and later the U.S. Junior Military Forces "Some of these sponsoring organizations had further aspirations of forming national Scouting movements, and by 1910 these included the publisher William R. Hearst's "American Boy Scout" (later the "United States Boy Scout"); the National Highway Protection Association's "Boy Scouts of the United States;" "The Peace Scouts of California;" the "National Scouts of America," formed by a military school in Manlius, NY; and "The YMCA Scouts" ... if Robinson had not been able to turn Boyce's fledgling group into a rigid monopoly on Scouting in the United States, would any of the five rival national Scouting movements been based on Baden-Powell's Patrol System?" Well, first off its questionable how many of those groups were really 'national' orgs, or just local or regional groups with delusions/hopes of grandeur. Also a big unknown is how well they followed B-P's program, or just glommed onto the word 'scout' for their own purposes. Without known more about this group's programs, its debatable how much they really followed B-P's program. I would hazard that most didn't. (tho I would think the various independet troops formed here and there probably did, because they were formed by local people using B-P's book). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 >>if Robinson had not been able to turn Boyce's fledgling group into a rigid monopoly on Scouting in the United States, would any of the five rival national Scouting movements been based on Baden-Powell's Patrol System Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Winger Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Talking about having patrols is not the same as the Patrol Method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emb021 Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 "I would say that it was more West who turned it into a rigid monopoly," Agree. It was West who, for better or worse, went after the various other scouting groups to get them to merge into the BSA or shutdown. I'm always amazed by some people who seem to ignore the impact of West. In another forum, I had people claiming that Boyce was much more involved in the BSA and acting as tho Boyce was the guy running the BSA, when it was really West. "but I'm curious as to Kudu's statement about the patrol method. The very first Boy Scout Handbook (1911) talks about troops being divided into patrols which are given names, etc, etc. Sounds like the patrol method to me." Subdiving a troop into patrols doesn't mean you follow the patrol method. If you look at the materials from the early days (teens) of the BSA, the Scoutmasters really ran the troops, not the junior leaders. It wasn't until Bill Hillcourt came along and thru his influence was able to implement the patrol method and such more in-line with how B-P had envisioned it, then how it was happening in the BSA at the time. GBB was the really 'father' of the patrol method in the BSA, having written the first American PL Handbook and many other BSA handbooks, ensuring that we would more following the way it should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudu Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 If Robinson had not been able to turn Boyce's fledgling group into a rigid monopoly on Scouting in the United States, would any of the five rival national Scouting movements been based on Baden-Powell's Patrol System? Kahuna writes: I would say that it was more West who turned it into a rigid monopoly, West would later become the BSA's attack dog, but the monopoly was already on the YMCA's agenda for the May 3rd 1910 meeting between Edgar M. Robinson (Senior Secretary of the YMCA's "Committee on Boys' Work"), J. A. Van Dis (Boy's Work Secretary of the State YMCA of Michigan), and William D. Boyce: "They explained to him the Scouting situation, as it then existed; that various groups and individuals in different parts of the country were aspiring to national leadership, and that some of these were more desirable than others. They also explained to him the desirability of trying to form one strong independent National Movement...." (Murray, page 25-26). Kahuna writes: I'm curious as to Kudu's statement about the patrol method. The very first Boy Scout Handbook (1911) talks about troops being divided into patrols. The devil is in the details, and these details were outlined in the first Handbook for Scout Masters: It was the Scout Master's job to "divide the Troop into Patrols" using BSA "Grouping Standards:" "The height and weight standard is more scientifically correct than the age standard, although it has not been tested out enough to warrant any authoritative declaration in its favor. "If this method is used for grouping, the standards for athletic competition among the boys might be used, that is, all the boys of ninety pounds and under might be put together, the same being true for those under one hundred and ten, one hundred and twenty-five, and one hundred and forty pounds. "If height is used, boys of fifty-six and a half inches in height and classifying under ninety pounds in weight, might be grouped together. Also boys of sixty-three inches in height and coming within the one hundred and ten pound weight. "This standard will doubtless become the real basis of all groupings in the future...." Presumably the Bob Whites of the BSA's first decade carried tape-measures to make sure that no Scout in the "fifty-six and a half inches in height" Patrol violated BSA policy with an unauthorized growth spurt The "Scout Master" could also divide the boys with other official "Grouping Standards," including the "School Boy or Wage-Earning Boy Standard" (Baden-Powell had carefully chosen the boys in his Brownsea Island experiment to overcome precisely this division of Scouts by social class). However, Baden-Powell's Patrol System, in which the Scouts form their own Patrols of friends and neighbors, was not an option in the new American Scouting monopoly. See: http://kudu.net/adult/methods/1st/group_standard.htm The "Eight Methods of Scouting" theory of the day was called the "Six Principles of Boy-Work," and it required the Scout Master to distrust the judgment of the Patrol Leader and to control the activities of the Patrols himself. Significantly, when the Scout Master delegated decisions, the BSA instructed him to delegate to the entire group rather than to the Patrol Leaders: "The Patrol Leader and the Scout Master "Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader. There is also a danger, in magnifying the patrol leader in this way, of inordinately swelling the ordinary boy's head. The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader, and if the Scout Master wants to delegate the work of the patrol and troop, the whole group should reach a decision in regard to the plan" (page 85, emphasis added). See: http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/ Kudu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Kudu: Yeah, the "attack dog" factor was what I was really talking about with West. I know Robinson had thought monopoly from day one, but it was West who fought and litigated and kept on until Hearst and all the others gave up. He did lose on the Girl Scouts, though. They kept their name despite every effort. As to the patrol method, I see what you mean. I dragged out my copy of SM Handbook No. 1 and re-read how they talked about "grouping standards." I guess I had completely forgotten ever knowing that kind of craziness went on in the early days. Okay, guys, time for annual patrol reorganization, line up by height in front of the scale. Of course, everyone who understands the history of the BSA knows that GBB was the one who brought "the patrol method" to the BSA when he wrote the Handbook for Patrol Leaders. I guess I think of the patrol method as using patrols to make up troops. I just wonder if anybody else as early as 1911-1913 would have had that concept based on B-P's writings. At least B-P didn't have any "grouping standards." 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emb021 Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I only recently got a reprint edition of the first edition of the BSA's SM Handbook. (for others, look for it on eBay. You can also get it on CD). What a boooring work. Dull, dull, dull. GBB's SM Handbooks are way better. A perfect example of some of the dull materials from National at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I am fortunate enough to have an original 1913 edition that I bought almost 40 years ago in a bookstore in Boston for $5.00! I never erased the price, which the seller had written in pencil on the first page. Yes, it's pretty dull, but if you compare it to other books of the time, even the handbook and very popular boys' books, like Dan Beard's The American Boy's Handy Book, they make pretty dull reading today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emb021 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 "Yes, it's pretty dull, but if you compare it to other books of the time, even the handbook and very popular boys' books, like Dan Beard's The American Boy's Handy Book, they make pretty dull reading today." You're joking, right? I got a copy of the American Boy's Handy Book as a scout and loved it. Its extensive illustrations and such really inspired me. That 1st ed SM Handbook seemed written to a college-level reader, and wasn't very inspiring for a scouting book (as compared to B-P Scoutmastership book, which is way better). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 You're joking, right? I got a copy of the American Boy's Handy Book as a scout and loved it. Its extensive illustrations and such really inspired me. No, not joking. I think the average American boy of the 21st Century would find the reading very stilted and difficult for them. I'm not saying that the stuff in there is not interesting to do. I wish I'd had a copy when I was a kid. Hand a copy to a 12-year-old boy who is not a bookworm and see how long he lasts. I don't know how long ago you were a Scout, but even when I was a boy, most of the kids I knew wouldn't have wanted to read it. What I'm really saying is that there is some good stuff in the 1911 SM Handbook, in addition to the Grouping Standards and such, but most of us would have a hard time picking through it to get it out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now