Page 1
January/July
...Preserving the Past, Informing the Future Not so Bold Vision by State Librarian Kendall Wiggin
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 FiveYear 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
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 eeverything. 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. Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 2
January/July
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
Connecticut Archives Month, October 2012 by State Archivist Mark Jones 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?
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?
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.
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”.
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
For more information about activities around the state and the Connecticut Archives Month poster, contact State Archivist Mark Jones at mark.h.jones@ct.gov. ♦
Connecticut State Library
For more information on American Archives Month, go to http://www2.archivists.org/initiatives/ american-archives-month.
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 3
January/July 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 Edith Stoehr was a “crack” shot. She taught women how allowed only fly-casting. A Board annual report to hunt on the women’s reserve in noted that ”this action is believed to be in line Farmington, Connecticut. 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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 4
January/July
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.
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
Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 5
January/July
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.
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 outof-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. ♦
[Game Warden Edith Stoehr] Artist: Harry Townsend Connecticut Federal Art Project, WPA
Note: all photos came from RG079:003 Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Board of Fisheries and Game.
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 6
January/July
The LSTA 2008-2012 Five-Year Evaluation and Road Map for the 2013-2017 LSTA Plan by Douglas C. Lord, LSTA Coordinator 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
Connecticut State Library
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 outcomebased 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 FiveYear 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 CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 7
January/July 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 gunmakers 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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 8
January/July
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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 9
January/July
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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 10
January/July
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 .56caliber 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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 11
January/July
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 No. 2, Spring, 2011, and and artillery ammunition Connecticut Explored has
the Union” first appeared in Connecticut Explored, Vol. 9, is here shortened (omitting Connecticut-made small arms and Collins edged weapons) for space constraints. 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 jane.beaudoin@ct.gov if you would like receive mailings about this and other Library programs. ♦
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 12
January/July
The Somers Church Fire and the Connecticut State Library by Carol Ganz, History and Genealogy 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
Pencil construction drawing with some dimensions. Layout plan of the sanctuary, showing pews. Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 13
January/July
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. Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 14
January/July
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.
Receipt from Chauncey L. Root acknowledging payment for itemized work done.
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)
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 15
January/July Teaching American History by Paul E. Baran, Assistant State Archivist
Assistant State Archivist Paul Baran speaks to Teaching American History workshop participants at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center on June 28, 2012.
This past June marked the completion of the Connecticut State Library’s involvement in a threeyear 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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 16
January/July 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 “The Teaching had participants look at American History the material culture of grant provided the State Library and the World War II through other institutional objects in the Society’s partners with the collection. At another opportunity to make workshop that year, their rich historical History and Genealogy collections known to Librarian Carol Ganz a group of educators.” 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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 17
January/July 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
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…”
“The Year Three theme of Sharing
Power – Federalism and International Relations seemed tailor made for resources in the State Library... ”
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
Connecticut State Library
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.
♦
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 18
January/July 150th Anniversary of the Connecticut Flag Day and Constitution Day Resolution by Allen Ramsey, Government Records Archivist
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 ii mean FLAG DAY.”
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
Jonathan Flynt Morris
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.”
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 Continued on next page
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 19
January/July
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.
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,
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 Portrait of Judge Dwight Loomis by artist requirement that “The Gustave Adolph Hoffman, 1934. governor shall, annually, in
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 allen.ramsey@ct.gov. ♦
i
Jonathan 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. ii Charles Dudley Warner, “National Holidays,” Hartford Evening Press, June 10, 1861. iii For Craig Harmon’s extensive research see: http://lincoln-highway-museum.org/FD-1862/FD-1862-Intro.html
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 20
January/July
Sharon Brettschneider Retires as Director of Library Development by Kendall Wiggin, State Librarian 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, “But above all else receiving the she was beloved by Connecticut Library her staff and Association Special always acknowledged and appreciated Achievement Award in them and made the 1987 for her work cowork more fun.” 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
Connecticut State Library
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. ♦
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3
Page 21
January/July
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
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速 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.
Connecticut State Library
The CONNector
Vol. 14, No. 1/3