Well, here's Brown University being upfront and honest about the role of slavery in their universities history, and you don't give them credit for that.
One version of Meyers's paper -- the one I linked to in my original post -- is here. He says, as I quoted in my last post: "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."
But William and Mary wasn't the only university in the South to use slaves in construction of their earliest buildings. For example, there's the University of North Carolina:
Using census records, we have documented the ownership of slaves by several of the contractors and subcontractors for the antebellum buildings. Other sources, examples of which are included in this section, confirm the use of slave labor by some of the contractors in the construction of the buildings.
...
OLD EAST (Original Construction)
From University Papers #40005 (connect to finding aid).
19 July 1793. Plan of Old East. On 19 July 1793 the Building Committee of the Board of Trustees contracted with James Patterson of Chatham County to construct the university's first building. The contract is on the verso of this plan, and it specifies "the Building to be (96) Ninety Six feet (7) Seven Inches in Length, (40) forty feet one Inch and a half in width, two storys in height . . . Eight rooms on a floor with a Chimney to each Room . . . the Sum to be given for finishing the said Building . . . is the Sum of two thousand five hundred pounds."
18 August 1795. James Patterson to John Haywood. Patterson writes to John Haywood, secretary-treasurer of the Board of Trustees, to complain that he has not received the final payment for the work on Old East. Recounting the problems he had during the construction, he explains that he proposed painting the roof before the scaffolding was taken down but was forbidden to do so. Once the scaffolding was down, he "was ordered to Paint the Roof and had to Make two Ladders 44 feet Long to Reach the Roof and too Hanging Do 28 feet Long to Reach the Length of the Rafters ... and Risk My own Slaves to Such Jeopardy ... the Least Slip of Hand or foot would have Cost them their Lives and Me a Valuable Servant."
There's also documentation for the University of Virginia. I don't know if it relates to the very earliest building, but the evidence is there.
I don't doubt that slave labor may also have been used in the construction of other Northern universities, but it's pretty clear that the same is true of Southern institutions as well.
Setting up a strawman, there x? You know that is not the point.
You said:......"One version of Meyers’s paper — the one I linked to in my original post — is here. He says, as I quoted in my last post: “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.”
You keep quoting Terry Meyers. He does not have any first hand documentation at all. Do you realize the maze of confusion that Meyers is using to set up that speculation as having some sort of relevance?
Well, if you will check the footnote from the paragraph you cite, that is #3, he does not have the actual documentation of the point that you think is so important, and have posted and re-posted. Get it through your head that he does not have first hand proof but quotes one James D. Kornwulf, "So Good A Design: The Colonial Campus of William and Mary".
If you do an internet search for Kornwulf's work, you can read his quotes on the construction isssue, you will find that he does not have any first hand information either.
Interestingly, he then refers you to an alledged quote from another source (getting frustrated here at the convolutions?) Earl C. Hastings, Jr., and David Hastings in their work, A Pitiless Rain: The Battle of Williamsburg, 1862.
However if you dig even deeper, you will find that even that book is not recognized as a fundamental source tool.
The peer review of this work was done by one Michael B. Chesson , Department of History, University of Massachusetts-Boston, who had this to say about the work of Hastings:
..."the book bears many of the marks of a rush job and does not meet the publisher's usual high standards.
If you read on, the reviewer points out a number of errors, mis-representations, and false contentions.
Would you want to base your reputation on a quote from this book? No, I think not.
So, esentially you still have no proof, just suppostion, quotes, re-quotes, assumptions, conclusions, and blather..........the usual from you, sir.