Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution Book

Stephen R. Haynes is Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis and Theologian-in-Residence at Idlewild Presbyterian Church. He is the author or editor of eleven books, including books on desegregation in American evangelical churches and works on the theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Haynes attempted in Noah's Curse to provide a comprehensive survey of the Biblical justifications for slavery as expressed in the Antebellum South before the Civil War. He also included counter-interpretations, the use of the specified part of the Bible to fight desegregation in America, and historical interpretations of the Biblical text in question prior to the Antebellum era. The key word here is comprehensive and that is where the author overreached himself.

In the commonly used version of the Bible in Antebellum America, known as the Authorized Version or the King James Bible, a great flood destroyed all life on earth that breathed except for eight people and the selected land animals and birds in the Ark, the ship Noah built. There were three sons of Noah who were the progenitors of all human beings who came afterwards; Ham, Shem, and Japheth. After the flood waters receded and the passengers on the Ark left the ship Noah built a vineyard, made wine, got drunk, and fell asleep naked in his tent. His son, Ham, saw him naked and reported the scene to his brothers, who proceeded to cover their father without looking at him. Immediately after that, Noah pronounced or foretold a curse on Canaan, Ham's son, a curse that was fulfilled when the Hebrews, former slaves of Egypt, conquered the land of Canaan's descendants and subdued them. There is no mention of any type of illicit sexual encounter, no mention made of mocking or laughing, and no mention of race in the Biblical text. However, these very interpretations were used in the Antebellum South to imply that Ham had sexual relations with either his father or his mother, that he mocked and insulted his father's condition, and that Ham was the father of the African races, a black man. The curse on Canaan is read back to Ham in this interpretation and became a justification for the black man to be in perpetual slavery to white men, presumably the descendants of Japheth. Although twisted interpretations of the Bible, or any religious text, are not uncommon as religion is typically used to justify already existing prejudices and bigotry this particular interpretation of the Bible became popular as a justification for racial slavery in the southern United States before the Civil War.

Haynes thoroughly reviews the major proponents of this type of Biblical interpretation in the South and the ways they used these passages as a religious bulwark to slavery. By using modern post-Enlightenment Bible versions in addition to the AV Haynes clouds the issue by not focusing strictly on what his subjects would have in front of them. His use of ancient Rabbinical and Christian sources, while interesting and useful on a scholarly level, also takes away from his stated intention, to explain how Southern Christians before the Civil War grew to interpret these passages to justify slavery. It is certain that the majority of Southern evangelicals who interpreted the Bible the way they did were not aware of either ancient Rabbinical or Christian interpretations, as a cursory review of the primary sources Haynes used that are readily available to the reader reveal. Haynes' problem in his overreach is that while his evidence and interpretation of the evidence are not in doubt the relevance to his subject of much of the evidence he presents is, although edifying in a general, unrelated sense. While a desire to place the interpretation in historical context is edifying to the student of the history of Biblical interpretation it is possible that such a desire can obfuscate the motivations of the Antebellum evangelical to the student of American history.

The book's review and analysis of the meaning and uses of the pro-slavery interpretation of the events of Genesis, chapter 9, meet the author's stated intentions and give validity to the book's title. However, in his attempt to place said interpretation in an historical context the author reduces the force of his argument and clouds the meaning and value of his research.