Coming from a family of lawyers, I experienced cultural disparities when I married into an Irish-American family. My new relatives excelled at storytelling, valuing the quality of the story over its factual accuracy. Over time, I learned to not interrupt my wife’s storytelling, even when I was a character in the tale, as the details were less important than the overall narrative. This lesson also applies to Malcolm Gladwell, the host of the podcast Revisionist History. While his stories are engaging, they should not be mistaken for actual historical accounts.
An example of this is evident in the first episode of his 2023 gun control series, The Sudden Celebrity of Sir John Knight. Gladwell revises facts to enhance the story, including a tale that portrays me more favorably than reality.
In 1686, Sir John Knight of Bristol, England, faced charges for violating the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which prohibited carrying arms under certain circumstances. Despite being accused of carrying guns in public places, Knight was acquitted. The case was documented in legal reports and later cited in William Hawkins’ criminal law treatise, which was prevalent in American law libraries.
One possible way Americans became aware of Knight’s case was through George Wythe, the first American law professor, who owned reports detailing the case. However, Gladwell’s recounting of this historical event contains embellishments. He falsely claims that I searched through Wythe’s library, which is inaccurate as the library no longer exists. In reality, I conducted brief online research on the William & Mary Law Library’s website to gather information about Wythe’s collection.
Gladwell’s embellishments serve to enhance the narrative but do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation. His portrayal of me as a fervent supporter of Sir John Knight is entirely fictional, as I have never expressed admiration for Knight in any of my writings.
For a more detailed examination of the Sir John Knight case, refer to my coauthored textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment, specifically chapter 22.
I have pointed out that Knight had a tendency to use the law to persecute non-Anglicans, specifically Catholics and Protestants who did not follow the Church of England. It is possible that Gladwell fabricated the idea that I admire John Knight because during a trip to England, I visited the location of the alleged crime that led to Knight’s famous trial at St. Michael’s Church in Bristol. However, my visit to historical crime scenes does not imply admiration for the individuals involved.
Historian Tim Harris described Knight as “nasty,” “vindictive and spiteful,” “a bigot,” and “a troublemaker,” making it clear that he is not a hero figure worthy of celebration. Contrary to Gladwell’s suggestion, no American has ever celebrated John Knight. Describing legal cases such as Miranda v. Arizona or Roper v. Simmons accurately does not equate to celebrating the defendants involved.
Gladwell’s claim that the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen pivoted on Knight’s case is a fictional narrative. The notion that English law was hostile to people carrying guns is debunked by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which allowed Protestants to have arms for defense. Knight’s acquittal in his case against the Statute of Northampton does not support Gladwell’s story of “check” and “checkmate.”
The core of the Bruen decision revolves around the original public meaning of the Second Amendment when ratified in 1791 by the American people. English laws from 1328 and 1686 are not relevant in determining American original public meaning. Relying on Gladwell’s Revisionist History podcast for historical accuracy is like turning to Comedy Central for current events. It may be entertaining, but not to be taken seriously as a source of reliable information. I have not verified all of Malcolm Gladwell’s work, but it is clear that when a storyteller describes a person in a place they have never been (such as me on the William & Mary campus) sifting through a library collection that no longer exists (like George Wythe’s personal collection), their main goal is not accuracy.
Source link
