Nicholas Hawk + counterfeiting

[spgordon]

Some time ago on this list JTR posted this interesting remark about Nicholas Hawk: "As for the engraving, Hawk was a very fine engraver! His hand was light and fine, and at one point he evidently spent some time in jail for forging either paper money, or the plates to print it."

I've seen a version of this remark show up in several Hawk rifle listings in the Julia auctions. These listings state that Hawk spent time in "federal prison," but I think there were no federal prisons until the 1890s. Hawk died in 1844.

JTR (or anybody else!): can you recall the source of this information about Hawk spending time in some jail for forging or for engraving the plates to enable forgery?

Many thanks,

Scott

[Seth Isaacson]

I've seen it claimed several times as well. Not sure the source. The Pennsylvania Packet from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on December 2, 1780, lists Hawk among a group of other men fined for "seditious conspiracy" in relation to tax laws, but nothing about prison time. Other sources discussing his work don't seem to mention anything of the sort.

[spgordon]

But, unless our birth dates are wrong for Hawk, this isn't the gunsmith Nicholas Hawk, who was born only in 1782.

[Seth Isaacson]

Good point! Oops!  This could be where the idea of him as imprisoned came from though. Perhaps he didn't pay the fine and did do time. I don't know. This is just what I had found.

[spgordon]

I suspect you're right that traces such as this--of a different Nicholas Hawk--got confused and got attached to the gunsmith Nicholas Hawk. But maybe there is more info about the gunsmith Nicholas Hawk (1782-1844) that others have found. If so, I hope they share! Thanks.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Have you searched through the 19th century county 'Histories?'  A number of years ago I found that a great deal of information which subsequently appeared in many of the mid/late 20th century gunmaker reference books was apparently simply "lifted" from these old county history books with no attempts made at verifying any of it.  Many of those old books of course were relying a great deal on oral interviews and tradition, so verification is extremely difficult if not impossible in many instances.

[spgordon]

Eric, I haven't. My hope was that the folks who (first?) stated the information--from what I can tell, JTR on here and whoever wrote the entries for the Julia Auction catalog--might respond to describe where they found it.

My belief, at present, is that the story is entirely mistaken--due to a confusion of an earlier Nicholas Hawk (or Hawkes) with our gunsmith. In addition to the 1780 new report quoted above (too early for the gunsmith), there is a reference in Kenneth Scott's Counterfeiting in Colonial America about a Dutchman named "Hawkes" committed to jail in September 1749 for counterfeiting (pp. 74-75). This is much too early for our gunsmith. But I am guessing that the "fake news" about the gunsmith Nicholas Hawk stemmed from reports such as these, handled sloppily.

I am eager to learn more, though--and if there is truly information about Nicholas Hawk the gunsmith (1782-1844) in this regard, eager to hear it.

Scott

[JTR]

Sorry to say, but I don't have any iron clad information.
Like others, I read that 'fact' in some of the books. And given Hawks light touch with a graver, assumed it might well be true. Seems to me, that most of history is part myth, part fact, with not much way to prove one way or another nowadays.
John

[spgordon]

John--thanks so much for this reply. When you say in the books, do you mean (if you remember) the sources cited here? Or do you recall finding it elsewhere in published sources? I only ask because I'll continue to search if you think you did see something that could relate to the gunsmith Nicholas Hawk in a published text. (I should check Whisker. Should already have done so.)

I agree its hard to disentangle fact from fiction--sometimes. Sometimes it is clear when mistakes have been made and in such cases the record can be clarified. Hard to know at times which situation one is in, though ...

Scott

[Seth Isaacson]

nowadays.
John

Its a lot better nowadays than it used to be. Lots of myths went unquestioned for long periods of time that have since been proven false. Nonetheless, historians of any period can only know what was documented in primary and secondary sources. Since all documentation is subject to bias, possibly lying, etc. We have to do the best we can with what we have available and generally prefer to have multiple sources whenever possible. Nonetheless, we must make do with what we have, theorize cautiously about what we cannot confirm, and do our best to understand the past for what it was rather than for what we want it to have been.

[spgordon]

Yes, this is a wise caution. But some things aren't subject to nuance or question. We know that the "Hawkes" involved with counterfeiting in 1749 and the "Nicholas Hawk" charged in 1780 are not the gunsmith Nicholas Hawk--who was not yet born.

The truth or facts about many things cannot be ascertained; agreed. One needs to be cautious in trusting sources; agreed. But, all this being true, some things we can know for sure.

[JTR]

Scott, I thought I had replied, but its not here, so I guess I had a brain

Anyway, I don't remember where I read it, but it would have been one of the gun books back about 15 years ago when I bought my Hawk swivel breech rifle. But like a lot of things that have proven to be not quite right since then, this hawk deal might not be, as well.

John