“...probably true....”
“...records don't survive....but...”
“I don't see that anyone's addressed this question.”
“It's also tricky...”
“It is said....”
“...but it's likely that...”
“...One could say...”
Nothing. Not one bit of information that can be verified.
Even your “higher authority”, Dr. Lounsbury, cannot step up to the plate with facts....just his own supposition. He says this: “Just how many slaves did similar skilled jobs is unknown, but it seems probable that there were some.”
That is a conclusion, not a fact. Your use of it as acceptable verification of a point you want to make reflects not just the irrelevance of Dr. Lounsbury, but the bias of your thinking.
Your bias has been exposed by a non-sequitur. How about that?
According to English professor Terry Meyers, the College has a lot of explaining to do about its associations with slavery.
In an upcoming article for the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, titled “A First Look at the Worst,” Meyers says that the College used slave labor to construct the President’s House, the Brafferton and the Wren Building. It also bought slaves with money from the state legislature. These slaves worked on plantations, Meyers argues, to fund scholarships for young men who were economically barred from coming to the institution.
Nor was it a rarity for the College to rent or auction off its slaves. Source
Meyers's article is apparently another version of the second article I linked to. If you followed that link you'd have seen this:
The early master builders were brought from England, but local contractors for the Wren Building supplied the laborers, who included, noted Lounsbury, two of President James Blair’s slaves.
We are in the dark about a lot of things that happened in the past. Hence my hesitation in coming to a conclusion. But so far, it does look like Brown wasn't the only college or university to use slave labor in constructing its first building or to have close ties to slave trading and slaveowning in its early years.