Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 2

The chapter highlights that New England—not the Deep South—“took the lead in slave trafficking”; what assumptions does this overturn about “where” serious moral compromise tends to live, and how does that challenge the way modern Christians locate evil mainly “out there” in other regions, parties, or denominations?

Another way to ask: How does it change your thinking to learn New England led in slave trafficking, not the Deep South? How does that challenge the habit of thinking evil is mostly “out there” in other places or groups?

Direct Answer The transcript overturns the assumption that the worst moral compromise “belongs” to some other place; Bercot shows it can thrive in regions known for religion and respectability, which challenges Christians to stop outsourcing evil to “those people over there.”

Support from Transcript:

Bercot asks who led slave trafficking—“The Deep South?”—and admits “That would have been my guess,” then answers: “no… New England.”
He ties this to Puritans and their descendants, showing the leading slave-trading region was also a region associated with serious Christianity.
Only “14 years after the founding of Boston,” Puritan traders commissioned ships “in quest of black slaves and gold,” implying early, intentional involvement.
When blocked in West Africa, they adapted by trafficking from “Madagascar,” showing determination, not accidental involvement.
He later says rum and slave industries were “at the heart of the New England economy,” meaning compromise wasn’t fringe; it was central.

Discussion Follow-ups What “good reputation” labels today might keep us from suspecting deep injustice in places that look morally strong?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 2 of 10