CONNector, Jan./July 2012

Connecticut State Library The CONNector Vol. 14, No. 1/3

January/July Page 1

Continued on next page

Kendall F. Wiggin,

State Librarian

In this Issue

Not so Bold Vision by

Kendall Wiggin, Pages 1-2

Connecticut Archives Month-October 2012 by Mark Jones, Page 2

Edith Stoehr, the First Female Game Warden in Connecticut by Mark Jones, Pages 3-5

The LSTA 2008-2012 Five-Year Evaluation... by Douglas C. Lord, Page 6

Connecticut Arms the Union by Dean E. Nelson,

Pages 7-11

The Somers Church Fire and the Connecticut State Library by Carol Ganz,

Pages 12-14

The Teaching American History Project in Connecticut by Paul Baran,

Pages 15–17

The Origins of Flag Day,

by Allen Ramsey,

Pages 18-19

Sharon Brettschneider Retires as Director of Library Development by Kendall Wiggin, Page 20

Not so Bold Vision

by State Librarian Kendall Wiggin

In June I had the privilege of attending “Bold Vision + Collective Capacity >

Transforming Communities,” an ALA Pre-Conference sponsored by the Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies. The

objectives were to re-envision public libraries’ community information services;

identify promising practices that will drive community transformation; and

develop plans to use our collective capacity to achieve favorable outcomes at all

levels.

Key drivers for this discussion were the redefining of communities through the

development of new partnerships; the abundance of information and scarcity of

attention; mobile and interactive information services; and the yearning for place

and community in a world of global virtual connections.

We did not emerge from the several days of great conversation with a bold new

vision. Instead it became clear to me that we, the library community, need to

make the mission of today’s library known to the community. There are any

number of innovative things going on in libraries around our state and our nation

that address the needs of the citizens they serve. This has been the great strength

and contribution that libraries have made since the social library evolved into the

public library in the late 19th century. Since the early beginnings of the public

library movement in this country, libraries have changed and transformed along

with the ever diversifying socioeconomic structure of the nation.

The Gates conference galvanized two things for me – the need for policy makers

to understand the role libraries play, and should play, as our towns and cities

transform and secondly the need for library leaders and staff to have the skills

needed to meet the rapidly evolving information needs of their communities.

At a time when policy makers believe the role of the library is diminished because

of a perception that everything is online and that all books are ebooks, we have to

better educate them about the important role that libraries play in this world of e-

everything. We know libraries are still vital to those seeking to improve their

lives, succeed at school and work, find a job, start a business, access government

information, or just enjoy a good read. Libraries are about making sure every

child is ready to read. Libraries support continuous education. Libraries promote

all literacies, especially digital literacy. Libraries play an important role in civic

engagement. Some libraries already excel as community conveners, but more

need to take on this role.

...Preserving the Past, Informing the Future


January/July Page 2

Connecticut Archives Month, October 2012 by State Archivist Mark Jones

The State Library’s Division of Library Development (DLD) has recently completed their strategic plan and the

State Library has completed and submitted the 5 Year Plan for LSTA. Both of these plans recognize that much of

what the State Library does is not “bold” but rather supportive of library service statewide. DLD’s vision is that

all people in Connecticut will be welcomed by vital and exciting libraries that will be centers of community life

and lifelong learning. Both plans recognize the need to provide librarians and trustees with the information and

skills to effectively advocate for community support to meet the needs of their communities in a time of rapid

transformation. To that end in the years ahead the Division of Library Development will focus advocacy efforts

on helping libraries demonstrate value to community and state policy makers. The Division will also focus

continuing education efforts on technology skill, civic engagement, and developments in the information

ecosystem. ♦

Kendall Wiggin, State Librarian 7/17/12

In his article, State Librarian Ken Wiggin offers a

proactive approach for librarians. He recommends

that the entire profession think about the future

impact of technology and its potential and publicly

enumerate the benefits of a library in such a world.

Institutions with archival holdings are also challenged

by the lack of understanding about the value of

archives to the everyday person and to research fund

allocators. Ken’s article is a “right on!” to us archivists.

In the face of mounting difficulties, shrinking budgets

and devaluation of cultural programs in this country

during the Great Recession, what can archivists do?

October is American Archives Month which is

sponsored by the Society of American Archivists and

the Council of State Archivists. The purpose of the

celebration is to exhort the public through posters,

special workshops and media initiatives asserting that

archives are necessary for government to continue its

operation in case of disasters, that archives enable

families to strengthen their bonds to each other, and

that archives are one of many cultural institutions in

our democracy that help citizens and officials to find

out where we were, where we are, and where we

might be going.

As in previous celebrations, we shall post on the

Connecticut State Library web site a copy of the

Proclamation signed by the Governor designating

October as Connecticut Archives Month. We shall also

keep a public log of special activities of local historical

societies, libraries and

museums around the state

during October, and we shall

post an announcement about

the Archives Month poster

funded by a grant from the

National Historical Records

And Publication Commission

and available from the State

Library. We shall have sent

copies of posters to public and academic libraries,

historical societies, and museums. Is this enough?

Is Archives Month enough? No, but there will be

more opportunities for us to make the case that

archives matter. There is; however, strength in

numbers. As Ken suggests, librarians need to make

the case that libraries matter more in a world of

rapid transformation and growing community

needs. So do Archives! Archivists and librarians

should join together to help “demonstrate value to

the community and state policy makers”.

For more information on American Archives Month,

go to http://www2.archivists.org/initiatives/

american-archives-month.

For more information about activities around the

state and the Connecticut Archives Month poster,

contact State Archivist Mark Jones at

[email protected]. ♦

http://www2.archivists.org/initiatives/american-archives-month

http://www2.archivists.org/initiatives/american-archives-month

mailto:[email protected]


January/July Page 3

A Connecticut Wildlife Pioneer and the WPA

by State Archivist Mark Jones


[Several years ago, I wrote the following article for this newsletter. Subsequently

I discovered a connection between Edith Stoehr and the WPA.]

“Gosh, what’s the world coming to, anyhow?” Edith A. Stoehr and the Women’s Fishing

and Hunting Reserves in Connecticut

On January 24, 1934, the Hartford Courant carried

a story about the first woman game warden in

the United States, Connecticut’s own Edith A.

Stoehr. She was the only woman, the story noted,

to be attending the Twentieth Annual Game

Conference in New York. The Connecticut Board

of Fisheries and Game had chosen her in the

spring of 1933 after she won a fly-casting contest

on the Branford River in North Branford. Now at

the conference, Warden Stoehr said that she

loved her job because “it’s getting paid for

something you love to do.” She had the police

powers of arrest and carried a gun. So far, she

had hauled off two men to local courts for

violations. Stoehr stated that “it shocked some of

them to have me come trudging up in my

hunting clothes-boots, riding breeches, and

hunting jacket, and ask for their license. Some of

them said ‘gosh, what’s the world coming to

anyhow?’ but they all very courteously

displayed their [hunting] certificates.” Indeed,

what in the world was happening to the male

bastions of hunting and fishing in Connecticut?

The State Board of Fisheries and Game oversaw

the enforcement of fish and game laws. In 1932

the Commission voted to approve a motion to

lease five miles of the Branford River only for

women, making it, as the Courant declared, “an

exclusively feminine trout stream.” Rules

allowed only fly-casting. A Board annual report

noted that ”this action is believed to be in line

with modern tendencies, and the constantly

increasing interest of women in all forms of sport. In 1940, seven years after the program’s beginning, the Board

reported that . . .

“Connecticut has always had a large number of women who were interested in fishing and a small group

Edith Stoehr was a “crack” shot. She taught women how

to hunt on the women’s reserve in

Farmington, Connecticut.


January/July Page 4


interested in hunting, and in recent years the number of real [female] enthusiasts has increased tremendously.

Many of these women have acquired fine hunting dogs, guns, fishing tackle and other accessories necessary

to enjoy these sports on a par with men.”

In fact, officials “soon realized” that “many of these women possessed skill equal to that of men, and from this

thought was born the ambitious program” of setting aside not only the trout stream in Branford but also a hunting

reserve in Farmington.

It was the age of Babe Didrikson and Amelia Earhart. Like them, Edith Stoehr demonstrated that she could mingle

with men and do what they did. A photograph of a 1938 Warden’s School, for instance, shows her seated in the

audience among her fellow male wardens wearing an attractive hat that shaded her eyes. She did not marry,

defying society’s norms that women could find only true happiness in marriage and could lead lives of fulfillment

only as mothers. Instead, Edith found satisfaction on her own terms in a job usually reserved for men.

Who was Edith Stoehr? She was born and grew up in Hartford. She did not graduate from high school but learned

about the outdoors from her father, Henry W. Stoehr. Writing to an inquirer in 1946, she stated that she had been

“fond of hunting and fishing since a very small child went with my father whenever he would allow me to tag

Miss Edith A. Stoehr, first woman Warden uniformed

and assigned to regular duties, checking the catch on

the first state-leased stream reserved for women.

Branford River, Connecticut 1932.

1937 Wardens school. Former Governor

Templeton addressing wardens. Edith is in

the background in a white hat.


January/July Page 5

along with him.” Both ran a kennel in South Wethersfield on Mills Street, raising setters and pointers. She was

devoted to her calling, writing that her “work is also a hobby, because I love everything about the work, the out-

of-doors, dogs-fishing and hunting.”

Edith became a celebrity. Radio stations, newspapers and

magazines interviewed her and praised this remarkable

woman. In spite of this, there was opposition within the

Agency to her appointment. It took Fisheries and Game

ten years to make her job as Deputy Warden a permanent

position so that she could collect a pension for the period

1933-1943 and subsequent years.

Her life was cut short. She died at Hartford Hospital on

March 6, 1946. The New York Times carried a photograph

with her obituary. At her funeral, fellow game wardens

were her pall bearers in a show of respect .

After the above article, I discovered that the WPA’s

Federal Art Project honored her in one of its paintings. In

2008 working on the CSL WPA Inventory, I came across a

black and white print of a painting of her by Harry

Townsend. I substantiated this with two photographs of

her: one, seated holding a shotgun and the other, posing

while standing in a stream giving out a ticket to a hapless

female angler. In the painting one of her dogs lay at her

feet. Was it her favorite? I wonder what Edith thought of

the painting. Did Townsend give it to her? Unfortunately

most of the FAP paintings were lost as the federal program

closed down in 1942. Still, we have the photograph of the

work and know that she was painted along with local

officials and judges, all men, by the WPA. ♦

Note: all photos came from RG079:003 Department

of Energy and Environmental Protection, Board of Fisheries and Game.

The only two snapshots Edith had of herself in uniform. One is with her two favorite dogs and the other

with her father, Henry Stoehr, and an unidentified angler.

[Game Warden Edith Stoehr]

Artist: Harry Townsend

Connecticut Federal Art Project, WPA


January/July Page 6

The U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services

(IMLS) provides Library Services and Technology Act

(LSTA) funding to states through a population-based

formula; Connecticut receives approximately

$2 million per year. To participate, states conform to

federal policies and guidelines and create five-year

plans which direct funds into the specific areas the

law intends to affect.

IMLS requires a formal evaluation of these plans. The

State Library awarded the contract for evaluation of

the most recent (2008-2012) plan to longtime

consultant firm Himmel & Wilson (H&W) from

Wisconsin.

Using data provided by the State Library, H&W

submitted Connecticut’s 95-page evaluation to IMLS

on time and on budget; Connecticut met or exceeded

all nine of its major goals and was praised for using a

wiki site as an electronic commons to gather

programmatic data in one place.

The evaluation provided a contextual overview of the

LSTA program and also served as an environmental

picture of Connecticut’s libraries. The bulk of the

report (60 pages) -- and by far its most valuable part --

was the rich comment and feedback provided by

members of the library community through focus

groups, telephone interviews, and a Web survey.

Feedback was gathered from groups comprised of

continuing education users, subgrant recipients,

public library directors and other special guests from

the library community, patrons of the Library for the

Blind and Physically Handicapped (LBPH), members

of the Advisory Council for Library Planning and

Development (ACLPD) and of the Connecticut Digital

Library Advisory Board (CDLAB). A wide-net online

survey also provided feedback representative of the

whole state.

Though unwieldy to discuss as a whole, the

evaluation provided few surprises and also cemented

and validated the Library Development Division’s

priorities and concerns. iCONN and Ccar are by large

margins the services about which respondents were

most concerned, with continuing education, summer

reading, and the two Library Service Centers rating

frequent mention.

The Evaluation did contain a few recommendations

which include implementing incremental outcome-

based evaluation measurement into the four projects

that account for most LSTA expenditure: LBPH, Ccar,

iCONN, and the collections and programs of the two

Service Centers. The evaluation also recommended

developing a method for data reporting akin to a

‘dashboard’ model and designing and implementing

new evaluation protocols to capture longer term

measures of skill, knowledge, and behavior changes

resulting from programming.

Fortunately, the evaluation provided all the input that

the Division needed in order to construct the Five-

Year Plan for the 2013-2017 period. This plan was

submitted to IMLS in June, 2012, with the library

community and ACLPD providing much guidance

and input.

One significant change coming to Connecticut’s LSTA

program has to do with programmatic subgrants,

which are awarded to public and other libraries and

which return much useful outcome-based evaluation

data. However, because subgrants, like snowflakes,

are unique, the Division is implementing directed

grants so that the larger impact of LSTA subgrants in

the states libraries may be woven together more

convincingly. Uniform outcome indicator data begins

in July of 2012.

Like the last plan, the 2013-2017 LSTA Plan will

account for the traditional LSTA pillars: access,

partnership, resource sharing, literacy and lifelong

learning, and telecommunication/infrastructure and

will include new IMLS initiatives on workforce

development, 21st-century skills, and digital literacy

skills. ♦

The LSTA 2008-2012 Five-Year Evaluation and Road Map for the

2013-2017 LSTA Plan by Douglas C. Lord, LSTA Coordinator


January/July Page 7


Connecticut Arms the Union

by Dean Nelson, Administrator, Museum of Connecticut History

A year into the Civil War, the U.S. War Department’s Commission on Ordnance and Ordnance Stores

reported to Congress on the state of the nation’s confused armament contracts involving tens of millions of

federal dollars. The goal was to impose order on the frenzied rush to arm the Union caused by “the unexampled

demand for arms consequent upon the sudden breaking out of the present gigantic rebellion….” In the report,

General James W. Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, estimated 500,000 new Model Springfield .58-caliber rifle muskets

(“the best infantry arm in the world”) would be needed in the next twelve months; he also assessed how many

rifles and revolvers would be needed. Connecticut’s armories were ready to respond.

By the mid nineteenth century, Connecticut manufacturers had mastered the complexities of innovation,

capital, labor, and raw materials for machine-based precision mass production of intricate metal parts and, with a

collective and deeply rooted firearms production heritage going back a half century, were ideally poised to make

arms for the Union. By the war’s end, Connecticut makers had supplied some 43 percent of the grand total of all

rifle muskets, breech loading rifles and carbines, and revolvers bought by the War Department, along with

staggering quantities

of small arms and

artillery ammunition.

Rifles and

Carbines

Of twenty-three

private Northern

contractors rising to

the challenge and

pursuit of profit in

Model 1861 Springfield

rifle musket

manufacture, eight

Connecticut

entrepreneurs and

established gun-

makers together

delivered an

extraordinary 37

percent of the war’s-end rifle contract total: more than 155,000 regulation guns plus 75,000 Colt Special Model

1861 rifle muskets to supplement the National Armory output at Springfield.

Connecticut’s major rifle makers included Colt Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company of Hartford. As

the war broke in the spring of 1861, Colt was coincidentally well into design and development of its newest

military shoulder arm, its first muzzle-loader (loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel). It was generally similar to

the government Model 1861s, but not cross-interchangeable in lock, stock, or barrel. The War Department

waived its requirement of parts compatibility and contracted for these non-conforming guns in part because


January/July Page 8


General Ripley, in the Commission report, endorsed Colt as “probably further advanced in their preparations

than any of the other companies…we are more likely to get good home manufactured arms from them…. in less

time than elsewhere…”

The Ordnance Commission report cited two other Connecticut private armories, Whitney Arms Company

in New Haven and Savage Revolving Firearms Company in Middletown, as well-established. But other

Connecticut firms without gun making experience moved into rifle production, too. For these newcomers,

musket production posed an industrial challenge. Before the war, Parker Snow & Company of Meriden made

kitchen utensils and sewing machines; the Connecticut Arms Company of Norfolk forged wagon axles; William

Muir, a New York City dry goods merchant, established his new gun making company in Windsor Locks; and the

triumvirate of J. D. Mowery, Norwich Arms, and Eagleville Manufacturing Company, all of Norwich, were

principally textile manufacturers.

The Model 1861 rifle musket and its close cousin the Colt 1861 Special Model were the finest infantry

shoulder arms issued to rank and file and the most common Union infantry arm of the war. Muzzle loading,

single-shot, and sighted to 500 yards, they fired a one-ounce lead conical-shape hollow base bullet propelled by 65

grains (a weight avoirdupois) of black

powder with average velocity of an

astonishing 1,000 feet per second. The

58/100-inch (.58 caliber) bore was rifled

with three slow spiral grooves that

imparted to the bullet an axial spin that

stabilized and ensured a true, speedy

flight. Resolute infantrymen could load

and fire one aimed shot about every thirty

seconds, and average shooters could

routinely hit a five-foot-square target at

100 yards. Bullet strikes to the head,

chest, and stomach were generally death

blows.

Gearing up to produce such arms

required extensive retooling. The

machinery inventory of any armory

making most of their own major parts

would count steam engines, boilers, and

piping to run an arrayed sequence of

reamers, lathes, milling machines,

grinding machines, planers, drill presses,

polishing frames, screw machines, drop

presses, trip hammers, belting, shafting,

heat treating furnaces, and more. Mark

Twain, a special correspondent for the

San Francisco newspaper Alta California,

in 1868 described Colt’s complex


January/July Page 9


operation (albeit the factory’s post-war, 1864-fire rebuild): “…on every floor is a dense wilderness of strange iron

machines… a tangled forest of rods, bars, pulleys, wheels, and all the imaginable and unimaginable forms of

mechanism. …machines that shave [parts] down neatly to a proper size, as deftly as one would shave a candle in a

lathe…” Some companies sidestepped the challenge: Connecticut Arms Company and William Muir &

Company, for instance, opted to assemble arms with parts made by sub-contractors and therefore required little

more than workbenches and simple hand tools to adapt to its new line of production.

The interchangeability of each and every component part, regardless of maker, was a War Department

requirement. To that end, the Union’s 1862 Ordnance Manual listed 77 distinct “verifying gauges” for the 50 parts

of a rifle musket and specified that “Each component part is first inspected by itself and afterwards the arm in a

finished state.” At the discretion of the government inspector,

completed arms were priced according to quality of fit and finish in

four classes. The government paid a high of $20 for a first-class

Model 1861 rifle musket and $16 for one deemed fourth class.

Whitney posited in ordnance hearings that his profit per gun might

be around $3, or 15 percent.

The Sharps Rifle Company of Hartford was well respected

by the government before the war for its reliable single-shot

percussion .52-caliber breech loading (loaded at the rear of the

barrel) carbines (a lighter rifle with a shorter barrel) and rifles.

General Ripley implored of Sharps late in 1861: “…. I desire that

you will continue to supply this department with Sharp’s carbines,

to the utmost capacity of your factory, until further orders.”

Sharps’s carbines were by far the most common Union cavalry

arms of the war. Their rifles, most set up for angular bayonets,

armed the famed Berdan’s Sharpshooters with limited quantities

issued to ten Connecticut regiments, especially flank companies

and for arming picked marksmen. With $2,400,100 in War

Department sales, Sharps ranked fifth in the nation of the thirteen

military contractors that surpassed $1 million in government sales.

Connecticut inventors secured seventy patents for arms and

munitions between 1840 and 1865. The introduction of Manchester,

Connecticut inventor Christopher M. Spencer’s 1860 ingenious

patent repeating rifle and carbine into U.S. service benefited

substantially from his contacts with Secretary of the Navy Gideon

Welles of Glastonbury. Welles got Spencer an initial contract for

800, though at the time “the only things they lacked were a factory,

machinery, and a workforce.” Securing financial backing in

Boston, Spencer scrambled to establish his armory in the Chickering Piano factory there, and through political

connections even arranged a presidential test fire with Abraham Lincoln on the White House grounds. The

Spencer made use of coil springs for butt-stock magazine feeding of newly perfected rim-fire metallic cartridges,

which held a lead bullet, explosive powder charge, and detonating primer all fixed in a copper casing. A soldier

observed, “The 37th [Massachusetts Volunteers] have now the Spencer Repeating Rifle, which can be discharged


January/July Page 10


eight times with but two or three seconds intermission, and then eight more charges can be put in the magazine of

the gun more quickly than you can put one charge in the Springfield Rifle…. Having this rifle carries this

disadvantage:… any delicate and difficult job to be done…is almost sure to bring into requisition our regt…” The

Spencer carbine was the second most common Union cavalry shoulder arm. The army purchased 11,471 rifles with

angular bayonets. Spencer Arms Company finished the war with the eighth highest contract total, at $2,078,427.

Inventor Benjamin Tyler Henry worked tirelessly for Oliver Winchester’s New Haven Arms Company to

get his 1860 patented .44-caliber repeating rifle (nicknamed a “Henry”) into mass production. It, like the Spencer,

employed a coil spring to feed rim-fire bullets into the loading mechanism. Lacking the range and stopping power

of other military shoulder arms, the Henry failed to attract much interest from the U.S. government until the last

year of the war when it purchased only 1,200, which represented about ten percent of total production. In the

Ordnance Commission report, General Ripley balked at the rifles’ “…lack of practical trials…as military

weapons…” their weight and need for special ammunition and “…very high prices asked…” Soldiers liked it,

though. A soldier of the 1st District of Columbia Cavalry wrote: “We have got our rifles and they are a nice pretty

piece…we can fire fifteen rounds without loading…The rebs say that we can load up on Sunday and fire all week…

the rebs hate them sixteen

shooters worse than they do

the verry [sic] devil himself.”

The models 1862 and 1864

carbines of Benjamin Joslyn’s

Firearms Company in

Stonington were single-shot

breechloaders using .56-

caliber rim-fire metallic

cartridges. West Point trials

documented the firing of

forty shots in five minutes.

Connecticut manufacturers of

breech loaders and repeaters

(perhaps a bit generously

including Christopher

Spencer’s Boston operation)

can be credited with 47

percent of those arms genres

totals.

Revolvers

Connecticut’s claim to

have produced 47 percent of

all the domestically made

percussion military revolvers

used by Union forces is no

stretch. The Ordnance



Department in September 1861 requested of Colt’s: “Deliver weekly, until further orders, as many of your pistols,

holsters, new pattern, as you can make.” Those Model 1860 Army .44-caliber percussion revolvers, priced

initially at $25 each (reduced to $14.50 in the spring of 1862 to be competitively priced with rival Illion, New York,

Remington Army revolvers), saw regular deliveries in lots of 1,000 or more per week through November 1864

until the pistol works burned in February 1864, ending revolver production for the remainder of the war. Colt

sold more revolvers to the Ordnance Department than any other maker. Colt’s revolvers orders combined with

its Special Model rifle musket orders totaled $4,687,031, the second-greatest Union armament contracts total for

the war.

Like Colt, three other Connecticut military shoulder arms makers had contracts for revolvers. Savage

Repeating Arms Company, Whitney Arms Company, and Joslyn Firearms Company each produced distinctive

patented percussion handguns with both military purchases and commercial open market sales.

The Lincoln administration and Union commands in the field were able to vigorously pursue their

respective political and strategic goals backed by a supreme confidence that there were armaments and munitions

aplenty to press the war. Northern industrial might, with Connecticut manufacturers well in the forefront,

ensured eventual military triumph on the battlefield. The end of armed hostilities and consequent surplusing of

hundreds of thousands of soon-to-be-obsolete military guns predictably saw many of Connecticut’s wartime

contractors withdraw from the armaments business. Collins went back to agricultural implements. Parker

expanded its line of kitchen hardwares and began post-war manufacture of fine commercial shotguns. Spencer, in

Boston, and Joslyn sold off their production machinery. Colt, Whitney, Sharps, and Henry (becoming in 1866 the

Winchester Repeating Arms Company) adapted quickly to the new era of self-contained metallic cartridges and

dominated the American firearms industry long after the war. ♦

Note: “Connecticut Arms the Union” first appeared in Connecticut Explored, Vol. 9,

No. 2, Spring, 2011, and is here shortened (omitting Connecticut-made small arms

and artillery ammunition and Collins edged weapons) for space constraints.

Connecticut Explored has graciously permitted this version of the original essay.

Third Thursday’s at the State Library

The third year of State Library and Museum of Connecticut History’s Third Thursday BrownBag Lunchtime

speaker series kicks off on September 20th. This series, which features a variety of speakers on various

aspects of Connecticut history, is held on the third Thursday of the month September through December

and January through June from Noon until 1pm in Memorial Hall, Connecticut State Library, 231 Capitol

Avenue, Hartford. All programs are free and open to the public and attendees should feel free to bring their

lunch. The series is sponsored in part by the Connecticut Heritage Foundation. Email [email protected]

if you would like receive mailings about this and other Library programs. ♦





When Somers Congregational Church went up

in flames after dark on last New Year’s Day,

televised images left little room to imagine that

any part of the structure survived. History and

Genealogy staff immediately checked records at

the Connecticut State Library to see if it had

historical volumes for this church, because it

appeared any at the church would have burned.

The Connecticut State Library houses records

from over 500 hundred churches in the State

Archives, the result of a project begun in the

The Somers Church Fire and the Connecticut State Library

by Carol Ganz, History and Genealogy

Pencil construction drawing with some dimensions.

Layout plan of the sanctuary,

showing pews.




1920s to encourage churches to place records here for safekeeping and to make them available for research.

During the next two decades churches of all denominations were invited to bring in their original records and

the library made photostatic copies of the major volumes. If congregations were willing to permanently deposit

their records, they were given handsomely bound copies in return. Some churches preferred to bring in records

for copying but took back the originals, so the collection includes many original manuscript volumes but also

many in copy form. Of course, some churches preferred not to participate at all. The Connecticut Society of

Colonial Dames provided volunteer time to talk to church authorities and, in some cases, to transport the

precious volumes to Hartford. Florence Crofut, Chairman of the Society’s Manuscripts Committee, was

especially active in making this project a success.

At her suggestion, Reverend Charles L. Ives of Somers Congregational Church brought in three volumes for

copying in October 1941 and two more the next April, with the understanding that the church would retain the

originals. The Archives held copies of the five volumes for forty years until the church reconsidered and traded

their original volumes for the copies in 1982, ensuring the safety of the historic manuscripts.

In addition to official registers containing the “vital records” of a congregation (baptisms, marriages,

membership, burials) and recorded minutes of meetings, sometimes other manuscripts came with the deposits,

such as for Sunday School classes, the church treasurer or a women’s group. In many cases there were also

some “papers,” loose items that record the life of a church such as correspondence, receipts, or drawings of pew

arrangements. Materials also arrived from other sources, such as a dealer in antique books and records, who

customarily did business with the State Library.

On checking State Archives holdings, staff discovered that, in addition to the five volumes of manuscript

records, there were papers that were probably not in duplicate at the church. Incredibly, these were described

as “Somers Congregational Church - meetinghouse plans, contracts, reports and correspondence, 1841-1842,” records

from the building of the historic structure that had just been destroyed! The State Library had purchased these

from Gilbert Whitlock in 1958.

Staff excitedly contacted the church and soon

Somers Church Historian Ailene Henry and her

husband Roland visited the Connecticut State

Library to take a look at these documents.

While the records do not provide the type of

detailed drawings that would be expected

today, there were floor plans with dimensions

marked and an agreement with the builder with

some of the specifications. The church hopes to

rebuild as closely to the original appearance as

possible, with some hidden concessions to

modern materials, conveniences and

regulations. While the 1842 plans are not

sufficient to thoroughly inform that project, they

make a nice reference to consider - and a

wonderful historical artifact of the now-lost

Somers Congregational Church Historian

Ailene Henry and her husband Roland

examine the documents.



meetinghouse. Library staff was able to provide digital images for the congregation’s future use, happy to be

able to do some small thing to help after the tragic loss of their beautiful and historic building.

Somehow the serendipitous discovery of plans for the landmark church building caught the imagination of the

media and the story was recounted over and over on television and in newspapers. Even a sharp-eyed USA

Today reader in Florida caught the reference and sent a clipping to a staff member. This story reminds everyone

that the State Library contains important historical records that people, such as the members of Somers church,

can use. In light of the publicity given this story, yet another church has donated its records to the State

Archives. ♦

Dimensions of a House of Public Worship, as

proposed by a Committee of the

Congregational Society in Somers.

Notable Acquisition on The History of

Connecticut Education

The State Library has recently acquired the following:

CHRISTOPHER COLLIER. Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange, CT: Clearwater Press, 2009. Pp. Xxii, 873, illustrations, bibliography, index (ISBN 978-0-578-01661-0)

Receipt from Chauncey L. Root acknowledging

payment for itemized work done.



Teaching American History

by Paul E. Baran, Assistant State Archivist


This past June marked the completion of the

Connecticut State Library’s involvement in a three-

year Teaching American History (TAH) grant

administered by EASTCONN. EASTCONN,

headquartered in Hampton, is one of six Regional

Educational Service Centers in Connecticut. It

provides a wide range of educational services to

thirty-three towns and thirty-six boards of

education in New London, Tolland, and Windham

Counties.

TAH grants are awarded by the U.S. Department of

Education to “enhance teachers’ understanding of

American history through intensive professional

development, including study trips to historic sites

and mentoring with professional historians and

other experts. Projects are required to partner with

organizations that have broad knowledge of

American history, such as libraries, museums,

nonprofit historical or humanities organizations, and

higher education institutions.”

The EASTCONN grant, entitled “Themes of History:

Expanding Perspectives on the American Story”

offered fall, winter, and spring workshops, a

summer institute, public history events, and

seminars designed to highlight a different broad

theme each year. About forty-five middle school and

high school teachers participated in all three years of

the grant. Five students from the University of

Connecticut’s Neag School of Education also took

part each year. EASTCONN partnered with the

Connecticut State Library and several other

institutions to offer the workshops. The other

Assistant State Archivist Paul Baran speaks to Teaching American History workshop

participants at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center on June 28, 2012.




partner institutions were the American Antiquarian

Society, the Choices Program of the Watson Institute

for International Studies at Brown University, the

Connecticut Historical Society, the Thomas J. Dodd

Research Center at the University of Connecticut,

Historic New England, and Museums of Northeast

Connecticut.

Each fall, representatives from each partner

institution and the EASTCONN TAH project staff

held a full day planning meeting to discuss the yearly

theme, and to suggest topics to be explored, materials

from their collections that could be the focus of an

activity, and historians who are experts on related

topics to speak at the public history events. By the

end of the day a draft outline of a professional

development program for the year was produced.

Details of workshop days were worked out in smaller

follow-up meetings between EASTCONN TAH

project staff and partners taking part in a particular

workshop day. This approach fostered collegial

planning among the partner institutions. The State

Library participated in two different workshop days

during each of the three years. A look at the activities

of these days, though a fraction of what was offered

each year, still provides a sense of the program as a

whole.

For Year One’s theme on Freedom, Security, and

Diversity, I teamed up with the Connecticut Historical

Society to present a workshop day held at CHS,

focusing on the home front during the Civil War,

World War I, and World War II. First, Ben Gammel

of CHS presented an activity on Civil War draft

quotas. For the World War I unit, I held a mock

Council of Defense meeting. The Council of Defense

was a state agency that coordinated war-related

activities on the home front. Split into smaller groups,

participants examined documents from one of the

Council’s departments: Americanization, Food

Supply, Fuel Conservation, Fundraising, Publicity,

Transportation, and the Woman’s Division.

Then each group reported on their “department’s”

activities. We followed this with a discussion on the

concept of a “total war” or the complete mobilization

of resources and population toward the war effort.

Finally, Ben Gammel,

Emily Dunnack, and

Richard Malley of CHS

had participants look at

the material culture of

World War II through

objects in the Society’s

collection. At another

workshop that year,

History and Genealogy

Librarian Carol Ganz

showed the participants

how genealogical resources

could be used for historical research, emphasizing

techniques on how to find and use data on

immigrants and immigrant groups.

The theme for Year Two was Individual Opportunity

and Social Responsibility. During the planning

meeting many of the ideas seemed to center on the

ideal of getting ahead in America. To this end,

Museum Educator Patrick Smith presented his

“Connecticut Invents” workshop. However, it

occurred to me that perhaps there should be a

workshop day to address those for whom

opportunity either passed by or seemed out of reach

and worked with the Mansfield Historical Society (a

member of the Museums of Northeast Connecticut)

to plan the day. For the first activity on poor relief

during the early Republic, I had participants

examine documents drawn largely from town

records for the years 1790-1830. During this period,

responsibility for poor relief in Connecticut fell to

the individual towns. We discussed the various

strategies used by towns to provide for the elderly,

the infirm and incapable, transients, slaves and

servants, and children. Ann Galonska of the

Mansfield Historical Society led the participants

through an examination of the Superintendent’s

journal from and other documents related to the

Connecticut Soldiers’ Orphan Home that operated

from 1866 to 1875. Finally, participants looked at

some of the “make work” projects of the Works

“The Teaching

American History

grant provided the

State Library and the

other institutional

partners with the

opportunity to make

their rich historical

collections known to

a group of educators.”



Progress Administration during the Great

Depression. Using the State Library’s digital

collections of the WPA Architecture Survey and the

WPA Art Inventory Project as examples, participants

searched the Internet for other digital collections of

WPA projects.

The Year Three theme of Sharing Power – Federalism

and International Relations seemed tailor made for

resources in the State Library. For the first workshop

of the year, Government Records Archivist Allen

Ramsey and I used documents identified by State

Archivist Mark Jones from the General Assembly

papers dealing with the sectional crisis leading up to

the Civil War. First, Allen led participants through

an examination of documents concerning Texas

annexation, the Mexican-American War, the

Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act, the

Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision.

In a follow-up activity, I asked participants to

compare resolutions adopted by both northern and

southern states concerning the Peace Conference of

1861 in Washington to determine whether there was

any way the Civil War could have been prevented.

These activities were a good juxtaposition with the

mock Constitutional Convention presented earlier in

the day by Historic New England in which

participants debated the ratification of the federal

constitution.

In the second workshop of Year Three, the State

Library planned a workshop day with a new

institutional partner in the grant, the Mashantucket

Pequot Museum and Research Center (MPMRC), on

State-Tribal relations. The workshop was held at

Mashantucket. In the first activity, Laurie Pasteryak

of MPMRC guided the participants through close

readings of visual representations of the Pequot War.

I presented an activity where participants looked at

“The Year Three theme of Sharing

Power – Federalism and International

Relations seemed tailor made for

resources in the State Library... ”

Connecticut General Assembly documents on

detribalization, or the efforts of state government to

legislate indigenous peoples out of existence in the

second half of the nineteenth century. J. Cedric

Woods, a citizen of the Lumbee Tribe of North

Carolina and Director of the Institute of Native

American Studies at the University of Massachusetts

Boston came in to speak to the group on the issue of

tribal recognition. In between were behind the

scenes tours and time to explore the museum.

The Teaching American History grant provided the

State Library and the other institutional partners

with the opportunity to make their rich historical

collections known to a group of educators. The

teachers came away not only with broader historical

knowledge but an understanding of how they might

incorporate historical documents and artifacts into

their lesson plans. A few of the teachers’ comments

about the program sums this up nicely. One wrote:

“Participation in the grant has prompted

me to consider for every unit: What

primary documents can I use?”

A second teacher commented:

“Words can’t express my gratitude to this

program in terms of influencing my

teaching. I started this program as a

beginning teacher and I have taken so

much of these informative sessions about

using primary sources…”

On the program as a whole, one wrote,

“This is an incredible program, I will miss

it so much. It has truly made me the

teacher I am.”

In my last activity with the teachers I told them that

all the hours it took me to design workshop

activities gave me a greater appreciation for what

they do to create lesson plans. From hearing their

comments afterwards I know it was time well spent.

♦



150th

Anniversary of the Connecticut Flag Day

and Constitution Day Resolution

by Allen Ramsey, Government Records Archivist

June 17, 2012 was the 150th

Anniversary of the

Connecticut General

Assembly’s passage of a

resolution recommending

the observance of Flag Day

on the fourteenth of June

and Constitution Day on

the seventeenth of

September of each year as

holidays. June 14 was the

day in 1777 that the

Continental Congress

adopted the Stars and

Stripes as the flag of the

United States, and

September 17 the day in

1787 the United States

Constitution was ratified.

The original 1862 Connecticut General Assembly resolution, which is available on the State Library’s Flickr site at http://flic.kr/s/aHsjzMN7zR, quashes the common misperception, as stated in U.S. House Resolution 662 passed in 2004, which states that Flag Day originated in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin in 1885. The founder, it claimed, was school teacher Bernard John Cigrand, who urged his students to observe June 14 as the “Flag’s Birthday.”

In truth, the resolution was the

idea of Jonathan Flynt Morris of

Hartford who proposed a

national Flag Day and

Constitution Day in June 1861 as

a direct result of the Civil War

and President Lincoln’s call for

75,000 troops to defend the

Union.i In a Flag Day address

before the Connecticut Society of

Sons of the American Revolution

delivered June 15, 1891, Morris

told how he proposed “the

propriety of celebrating the day

by public demonstration” to

Hartford Evening Press editor

Charles Dudley Warner, who

“...at once fell in with the idea”

believing as Morris that, “…the

flag and the constitution were

both on trial, and it was the duty

of every loyal man to sustain

them.”

That being the case, on June

10, 1861, Warner wrote an

editorial titled “National

Holidays” “…suggest[ing]

another day, worthy to

become a national holiday. It

may be too late for its general

observance this year, but we

hope that it will, in time, be

recognized wherever the

American flag floats. We

mean FLAG DAY.”ii

The Hartford Courant voiced

its support on June 14 and

reported that Hartford and

several Connecticut towns

embraced the idea. On June

15 the Courant reported that

“American Flags were the

order of the day all over the

city yesterday…Nearly all

the leading dry-goods

merchants made handsome

displays.” Three days later the

Courant reported that “the people

of Terryville celebrated Flag-day

by having a speech…and a

collation in a large new barn,

appropriately decorated with the

stars and stripes.”

This success was followed a year

later on June 6, 1862, by a

resolution introduced by Senator

Henry K. W. Welch that read,

“Resolved. That we recommend

to the people of this State to

observe the 14th day of June and

the 17th day of September in each


Jonathan Flynt Morris

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjzMN7zR

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjzMN7zR



iJonathan Flynt Morris in his speech before the Connecticut Society of Sons of the American Revolutionary War, at the Lebanon War Office, on Flag Day, 1891, talks about writing to Congressman Dwight Loomis in early June “asking him to introduce in Congress a resolution for the observance of “Flag Day” as a national holiday, to embrace “Constitution Day” also.” However, as of this writing, there is no direct evidence that Morris wrote asking State Senator Henry K. W. Welch to introduce a resolution in the Connecticut General Assembly for Flag Day and Constitution Day even though both the federal and state resolutions are identical in wording. iiCharles Dudley Warner, “National Holidays,” Hartford Evening Press, June 10, 1861. iiiFor Craig Harmon’s extensive research see: http://lincoln-highway-museum.org/FD-1862/FD-1862-Intro.html

year as holidays – the first to be

known as Flag Day and the latter

as Constitution Day.” The Senate

passed the resolution on June 12

and the House of Representatives

on June 17, 1862. A similar

resolution was introduced at the

suggestion of Morris in the U.S.

Congress by Representative

Dwight Loomis of Connecticut on

June 11, 1862, but was tabled on

June 12.

Governor Luzon B. Morris on June

14, 1893 signed into law “An

Act concerning Flags for

School Districts” which

required selectmen to

provide each schoolhouse in

their town with United States

flags. The second section of

the act required “Suitable

exercises, having references

to the adoption of the

national flag, shall be had on

the fourteenth day of June in

each year…” The General

Assembly four years later

passed an act imposing a fine

of ten dollars on selectmen

that failed to provide flags or

apparatus to school districts

as required by the 1893 act.

The statute was then

amended in 1905 by House

Bill 634, which added the

requirement that “The

governor shall, annually, in

the spring, designate by official

proclamation the fourteenth day

of June as Flag Day…” Governor

Henry Roberts issued the first

Connecticut Flag Day

proclamation on May 26, 1906

and the practice has been

continued by governors to the

present.

On the national level, President

Woodrow Wilson issued the first

Presidential Flag Day

Proclamation on May 30, 1916,

requesting that June 14 be

observed as Flag Day across the

United States. On August 3,

1949, President Harry Truman

signed an Act of Congress

designating June 14 of every

year as National Flag Day.

I would like to acknowledge and

thank Craig Harmon, Director of

the Lincoln Highway National

Museum and Archives, who after

years of research into the origins of

Flag Day, put all the pieces together

and discovered the long lost

1862 original handwritten

Loomis resolution [H Res

84], located at the National

Archives, which he brought to

the attention of the

Connecticut State Library

and shared with me along

with his ongoing efforts

nationally to set the record

straight and honor Jonathan

Morris as the originator and

Warner, Welch, and Loomis

as facilitators of what we

celebrate today as Flag Day

and Constitution Dayiii.

Anyone who wants to consult sources used by Allen Ramsey should contact him at

[email protected]. ♦

Portrait of Judge Dwight Loomis by artist

Gustave Adolph Hoffman, 1934.

http://lincoln-highway-museum.org/FD-1862/FD-1862-Intro.html




universal remote access to iCONN’s

licensed resources. The Public Library

Construction Grant Program has

awarded millions of dollars and helped

communities throughout the state build

new and expanded libraries thanks to the

efforts of Mary Louise Jensen and keen

oversight by Sharon. A much needed

update of the public library statutes was

spearheaded by Sharon. A variety of Gates

Foundation grant programs bringing new

technology resources to Connecticut libraries,

including Equal Access Libraries, Project Compass,

and Spanish Language Outreach were a result of

Sharon’s efforts. Her efforts and participation in

library development extended beyond Connecticut,

and gained her the respect of her colleagues in State

Library Agencies throughout the Northeast.

The annual federal Library Services and

Technology Act state grant which brings several

million dollars to the state each year was

meticulously administered by Sharon through good

times and bad. She was held in high regard by the

staff and officials at the Institute of Museum and

Library Services, the federal office that awards

LSTA grants.

But above all else she was beloved by her staff and

always acknowledged and appreciated them and

made the work more fun through her good humor.

Sharon was also held in high regard by her

colleagues throughout the State Library and by the

State Library Board.

The State Library has received approval to refill the

position of Director of Library Development, and

recruitment is underway. ♦

On January 31, 2012,

Sharon Brettschneider retired after

twenty two years of service to the

Connecticut library community, the last

sixteen of those years as the Director of

Library Development at the Connecticut

State Library.

Sharon gained the respect of librarians,

trustees, and friends of libraries throughout

Connecticut and beyond. During her career she was

recognized numerous

times by her colleagues,

receiving the

Connecticut Library

Association Special

Achievement Award in

1987 for her work co-

chairing the Legislative

Committee; the

Association of Connecticut Library Board’s Award

of Appreciation in 2003 for work as the State

Library’s liaison to ACLB; and being named the

Connecticut Library Association’s Outstanding

Librarian in 2004. Her efforts as the Director of

Library Development led to many improvements

and innovations in statewide library services.

Sharon initiated a cost study report for

Connecticard which helped lead to an expansion of

and more funding for the program. She oversaw

the establishment of the Connecticut Library

Network and its successful transformation into

iCONN, Connecticut’s research engine. She helped

initiate the State Library’s participation in the

WebJunction program providing valuable Web

services and continuing education opportunities for

Connecticut library staff. Sharon was the prime

mover behind the development of a statewide

library barcode that eliminated the need for patrons

to have multiple library cards and made possible

Sharon Brettschneider Retires as Director of Library Development

by Kendall Wiggin, State Librarian

“But above all else

she was beloved by

her staff and

always acknowledged

and appreciated

them and made the

work more fun.”



The Connecticut State Library has entered into a licensing relationship with EBSCO Publishing. The full text of The

CONNector will be available in LISTA (Library Information Science & Technology Abstracts) Full Text, one of the

EBSCOhost® databases. Anyone interested may use the open access version of LISTA (index only). It is available free of

charge, courtesy of EBSCO, at http://www.libraryresearch.com.

STATE LIBRARY BOARD

John N. Barry, Chair

Robert D. Harris, Jr., Vice Chair

Honorable Michael R. Sheldon

Honorable Robert E. Beach, Jr.

Linda Anderson

Daphne Anderson Deeds

Eileen DeMayo

Allen Hoffman

Joy Hostage

Scott Hughes

Mollie Keller

Stefan Pryor

CONNECTICUT STATE LIBRARY

CONNector EDITORIAL BOARD

State Librarian Kendall F. Wiggin

State Archivist Dr. Mark H. Jones, Editor

Carol Ganz, History & Genealogy Unit

Dave Corrigan, Museum Curator

Stephen Slovasky, Reviewer

Ursula Hunt & Carol Trinchitella, Graphics

Christine Pittsley, Photo Imaging

http://www.libraryresearch.com/

Documents

CONNector, Jan./July 2012