Skip to content

The American Malefactor’s Dictionary: Adam

Go to The American Malefactor's Dictionary

Adam

– a henchman, an accomplice.

The word is also used in combination, as in Adam tiler (or tyler), a pickpocket’s accomplice. This latter term refers to the person to whom the pickpocket quickly passes off his or her gains for safekeeping and to avoid suspicion.

Sources:

Note: See “Cant: The Language of the Underworld” to learn more about the background of the American Malefactor’s Dictionary.

Cant: The Language of the Criminal Underworld

Go to The American Malefactor's Dictionary

Cant, or flash as it is sometimes called, is a specialized language used by criminals to keep communication about their intentions and actions from being understood by their victims or the authorities. Because any language requires a distinct group of users who can speak and understand it, cant indicates the presence of at least a quasi-community of criminals who share their unlawful methods with one another and organize themselves in similar ways. The language of cant, then, provides insight into the criminal underworld and how criminals operate.

Cant dictionaries began appearing in England in the seventeenth century. Their purpose was to help protect the law-abiding public from criminals who populated the streets. Armed with their cant dictionaries, pedestrians could theoretically translate the words used by criminal populations and avoid situations that threatened their well-being. A NEW Canting DICTIONARY (1725), for instance, advertised itself as being “Useful for all Sorts of People (especially Travellers and Foreigners) to enable them to secure their Money and preserve their Lives.”

In 1859, the Chief of Police of New York, George Matsell, published the first cant dictionary in America entitled Vocabulum; or, The Rogue’s Lexicon. In it, Matsell claimed that “The rogue fraternity have a language peculiarly their own, which is understood and spoken by them no matter what their dialect, or the nation where they were reared. Many of their words and phrases, owing to their comprehensive meaning, have come into general use, so that a Vocabulum or Rogue’s Lexicon, has become a necessity to the general reader, but more especially to those who read police intelligence.” His book became standard issue for police officers in the nineteenth century until it fell out of favor at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Cant words often refer to criminal practices and techniques, and they can be used to confuse potential victims or to hide the intentions of criminals. Pickpockets, for example, can use cant to point out a potential victim to one another, even if that person is within earshot of the communication.

Some cant words have consistently appeared across generations of criminals, which indicates that at least some of the words that show up in these cant dictionaries do indeed have real meaning for this deviant group. Many of the words cataloged by early cant dictionaries crossed the ocean from England to America–some of them, no doubt, brought over by transported convicts–and continue to survive today. For example, shiv, the term for an improvised knife-like weapon created by inmates in a prison, has its roots in eighteenth-century England when it took the form chife or chive and was defined as “A knife, file, or saw.”

Attempts to systematize cant are often met with difficulty. Cant is essentially an oral language, so compiling a list of cant words and their meanings doesn’t convey the true context in which they are used. Practitioners of cant also have an interest in hiding the true meaning of the words and limiting their understanding to “members only.” Because users of the language try to keep outsiders from understanding it, the ability to speak cant serves as a quick way of identifying members of a criminal network or group and is a sign that the speaker can be trusted to some degree.

Cant offers an unusual glimpse into the hidden world of crime and criminals, so Early American Crime will be starting a new weekly feature that will define and explain a “cant word of the week.” I will try as much as possible to identify words and terms that are American in origin or use, and I will limit my selections to those that were in circulation during the nineteenth century or before. Over time, these entries will come together to create an “American Malefactor’s Dictionary,” and they may even help to protect you the next time you find yourself walking down a dark alleyway.

Sources:

In the Media: EAC in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette

Go to In the Media

Early American Crime has appeared in the press once again, this time in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

The article, “Crime and punishment: Trip to the Colonies” includes an interview with me about convict transportation, the Early American Crime website, and the release of my new e-book on Convict Transportation from Great Britain to the American Colonies, which brings together all of the blog posts from the series of the same name that appeared on this website.

Read the full article here.

Early American Criminals: Is Robin Hood More American than British?

Go to Early American Criminals

Click image to go to Early American Criminals

Tom Cook was a notorious New England thief who happens to have been born in my hometown of Westborough, MA. He called himself “The Leveller” and cultivated a reputation for stealing from the rich and readily sharing his ill-gotten gains with the poor.

Stories of his exploits have been handed down for generations. Alice Morse Earle in Stage-Coach and Tavern Days recounts some of them:

He stole from the rich and well-to-do with the greatest boldness and dexterity, equaled by the kindness and delicacy of feeling shown in the bestowal of booty upon the poor and needy. He stole the dinner from the wealthy farmer’s kitchen and dropped it into the kettle or on the spit in a poor man’s house. He stole meal and grain from passing wagons and gave it away before the drivers’ eyes. A poor neighbor was ill, and her bed was poor. He went to a thrifty farm-house, selected the best feather bed in the house, tied it in a sheet, carried it downstairs and to the front door, and asked if he could leave his bundle there for a few days. The woman recognized him and forbade him to bring it within doors, and he went off with an easy conscience (383-384).

Earle goes on to say, “He was adored by children, and his pockets were ever filled with toys which he had stolen for their amusement” (384).

Tom Cook’s presence in Westborough looms large. Everyone in town knows the blue plaster house on East Main Street where Cook was born on October 6, 1738. Town lore says that after Tom came close to death shortly after his birth, his mother made a deal with the devil to spare his life, which supposedly accounts for his criminal ways later in life. And every year schoolchildren studying our town’s history write reports about New England’s own version of Robin Hood.

Tom Cook, however, may be more like Robin Hood than Robin Hood was himself.

Scholars at a recent academic conference on Robin Hood at the University of Rochester all generally agree that our common notion that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor is an American invention.

“I think he’s more American than British,” Marcus A. J. Smith, a retired English professor who has studied Robin Hood, is quoted as saying in a recent article about the Robin Hood conference in the New York Times.

Douglas Fairbanks as Robin Hood; a screenshot ...
Image via Wikipedia

Stephen Knight, a leading scholar on Robin Hood, also claims in the article, “Americans like the redistribution myth, but it isn’t a medieval part of the story. He isn’t a revolutionary. He’s not interested in regime change.”

Because so little is known about the actual history of Robin Hood, his character has been embellished over the centuries. The ambiguity of his story and the ability of cultures to interpret his actions to fit their particular causes have resulted in the common belief today that Robin Hood was mainly interested in redistributing the wealth of the undeserving nobility to people who needed it more. Robin Hood scholars, though, have traced this embellishment to American culture.

The power of the Robin Hood redistribution myth in American society can easily be seen in the many depictions of him in popular culture, including movies, television shows, and even cartoons. It also is displayed in the way his story is often connected to popular American criminal figures like Tom Cook and Jesse James.

Given that Americans tend to adhere strongly to the spirit of capitalism and individualism, it seems odd that the Robin Hood redistribution myth should figure so prominently in American popular culture. Perhaps the appeal of the myth is rooted instead in a desire to believe in some sense of divine justice: that those at the top who abuse their power and position will eventually fall to those who seek to uphold and protect the moral right, even if it takes a criminal hero to topple them.

Tom Cook’s career of stealing from rich New England farmers came to an end when he succumbed to old age and to an accident that partially crippled his legs. He ended up joining the ranks of those he helped in his youth by landing back in Westborough on Levi Bowman’s poor farm, which was located right down the street from where I currently live. Cook died near the age of ninety, and he is buried in an unmarked pauper’s grave somewhere in town.

Sources

  • Allen, Kristina Nilson. On the Beaten Path: Westborough, Massachusetts. Westborough Civic Club and Westborough Historical Society, 1984.
  • Applebome, Peter. “A Hero (or Villain) for the Left (or the Right).” The New York Times. New York section. Monday, October 26, 2009, A17.
  • Earle, Alice Morse. Stage-Coach and Tavern Days. Williamstown, MA: Corner House Publishers, 1977. Originally published in 1900 by Macmillan. Online edition.
  • Forbes, Harriette Merrifield. The Hundredth Town: Glimpses of Life in Westborough, 1717-1817. Boston: Press of Rockwell and Churchill, 1889. Online edition.
  • Johnson, Valerie B. “Robin Hood.” The Robin Hood Project (Website). The University of Rochester, 2008.
  • Knight, Stephen and Thomas Ohlgren, eds. Robin Hood and Other Outlaw Tales (Website). 1997.

EAC Reviews: Counterfeiting in the Early United States

Click to see more EAC Reviews

A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men, and the Making of the United States by Stephen Mihm (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 457 pp.

Counterfeiting was widespread during the early history of the United States. Some estimates from the time claimed that between ten and fifty percent of the circulating currency was counterfeit. Such high numbers were probably an exaggeration, but to put these early guesses into perspective, a U.S. government survey conducted in 1911, well after a standard federal currency was put into place, concluded that only one thousandth of one percent of the total paper currency in circulation was counterfeit.

Stephen Mihm’s A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men, and the Making of the United States chronicles a wild time in the early stages of American capitalism when countless banks issued thousands of bank notes that functioned as paper currency. Not surprisingly, this confusing array of monetary bills created the perfect conditions for counterfeiting, which often blurred the distinctions between the real and the false, the capitalist and the criminal, and the legitimate and the criminal enterprise.

Banks began issuing bank notes as an easy means of facilitating exchange without dipping into their precious metals holdings or other assets. The holder of such a bank note could show up at the bank that issued it at any time and demand the equivalent amount in gold or silver. With the bank’s backing, though, these notes were mostly meant to be transferred to someone else in exchange for goods or services, so that bulky gold or silver did not need to pass hands.

In order to discourage counterfeiting, the banks employed professional engravers to produce their notes, and each note was signed by an official at the bank. With each bank issuing its own form of currency, however, keeping track of the designs of each bank note was near impossible. And when Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the United States, which at the time was the closest the U.S. had to a centralized bank, the number of banks and currencies proliferated exponentially. Counterfeiters seized on this opportunity. They employed engravers of equal if not superior talent as those who turned out the real thing, and in some cases, the engravers themselves produced both real and counterfeit bills, depending on who was paying the bill.

Mihm nicely weaves together anecdotes involving the colorful personalities of the counterfeiters, bankers, and detectives with informative passages about counterfeiting and the early banking system. He takes full advantage the fluid boundaries, false distinctions, and deep ironies that define the world of counterfeiting in the early U.S. to move his narrative along. At a time when there often wasn’t enough currency circulating to facilitate trade, counterfeit money actually provided a much-needed public service. As long as the person accepting the bill took it with confidence that he could pass it along to someone else, what did it matter if the note was real or fake?

The total value of bank notes issued almost always added up to more than what the banks had in reserve, on the assumption that all of the notes they issued would never be redeemed at the same time. In a practice that resonates today after the Madoff scandal and the recent banking crisis, some banks issued currency with practically no backing at all. These “wildcat banks” would eventually fail, especially in times of economic crisis, and leave anyone holding their notes out to dry. People openly wondered what made these banks any more legitimate than counterfeiters, since both parties issued notes without any backing. Ironically, counterfeit money could sometimes be exchanged with more confidence than the notes issued by these spurious banks, since it usually imitated notes from banks with solid reputations.

Many of the early counterfeiters congregated along the border between Canada and Vermont to help avoid the American authorities and take advantage of the different systems of law. Mihm shows how these counterfeiters ran a complex, professional network of producers, sellers, and buyers of counterfeit money that ran down the east coast. To distribute their counterfeit bills, these counterfeiters often employed horse thieves, who naturally used stolen horses to deliver their shipments. As a result, the area became a center for both counterfeiting and trafficking in stolen horses.

Counterfeiting followed the westward expansion of canals and roadways that opened up new areas of the country to commerce. In these new territories, counterfeiters took advantage of lax laws and enforcement, a less structured banking system, and a great need for a means of exchange. Eventually, however, counterfeiting settled in large cities, where urban anonymity made it easier to pass fake bills to unsuspecting shopkeepers.

Mihm describes an “economy teeming with notes neither totally real nor completely counterfeit” (239). When read together with Thomas Levenson’s Newton and the Counterfeiter (read the EAC review), one begins to appreciate the security of our present-day currency and realizes that the confidence we place in it is actually a recent phenomenon. While today’s would-be counterfeiters have moved on to employ more sophisticated tactics to take advantage of our complex financial system, Mihm’s book entertainingly chronicles a time when counterfeiting, a crime that was much more prevalent back in the early stages of capitalism than it is today, was the preferred method for “making” money.

Don’t forget to visit the Early American Crime Bookshop.