DWIC owned this property to house enslaved workers from Africa and the Americas. It was the "house of the company's negroes'" as listed in Stokes.
In Andrea Mosterman's book Spaces of Enslavement , she notes " New York's enslaved population also included a significant number of Native Americans. In fact, frequent references to enslaved Native Americans in colonial legislation suggest that their enslavement was not uncommon in the region, even though a 1679 law prohibited the bondage of New York's indigenous populations and granted freedom to Native Americans who had been brought into the colony from other parts of the Americas after they had been there for six months. Thus, New York's enslaved population consisted of an ethnically diverse mix of men, women, and children of African and Native American descent." p 6
"The men and women enslaved by the company helped build the colony's infrastructure and fortifications, such as Fort Amsterdam, clear the land, develop its agriculture, and tend to livestock." p 23
" Enslaved men who worked in chains likely produced some of the most physically taxing labor, such as the digging of the canals. Their circumstances were so severe that working alongside them became a form of punishment in the colony...." See this document as an example: https://encyclopedia.nahc-mapping.org/document/dutch-colonial-council-minutes-17-may-6-june-1644
" By the 1660's, the seven or eight people still enslaved by the company in New Amsterdam may have inhabited this building as well. ..... if most of the people enslaved by the company lived here, which was likely the case considering that it was referred to as the house of the company slaves, it housed multiple families, thus leaving little privacy and space for each of them." p 35
We are estimating that this meant there may have been 7-8 families living in the very small house, so perhaps as many as 35-40 people. More research may provide additional information. TD 2023
This building and the land on which it stood covered the site of Nos. 3 2-34 South William Street. The structure occupied the easterly half of the plot, as the Plan shows. The easterly wall of the building of to-day is on the exact line of the easterly wall of the house built by the Company for its slaves, before 1643, how much earlier, is not known. The first reference to it is in the grant of June 22, 1643, to Evert Duyckingh, on the east {Liber GG: 67, Albany), which grant bounds on the Company's marsh and the land of the negroes. In June, 1654, Stuyvesant granted most of the negroes' land to Adriaen Dircksen Coen {Liber HH; 2: 11, Albany), reserving only the house and its house-plot.
In August, 1657, when Adriaen Dircksen Coen transferred his ground-brief to Jacob van Couwenhoven, he recited that it was bounded in part by "the house the Negroes live in." — Liber Deeds, A: 90. The dilapidated little building was demolished about the time that Stuyvesant granted the land to the deacons of the city, July 7, 1662. This grant is not found of record, but is recited in a deed of January 18, 1663 {ibid., B: 3; cf. Deeds y Conveyayices (etc.) 1659-1664, trans, by O'Callaghan, 292-3), when the ground was vacant. This deed reads, in part:
Before us the underwritten Schepens of the City Amsterdam in N. Netherland appeared the Deacons here who declare by virtue of a ground brief dated July 7, 1662, to cede transport and convey in a right, true & free ownership unto Mr. Govert Loockermans ancient Schepen of this City a certain lot with such existing and dominant services and rights as the same was possessed by the Deaconry. the abovementioned lot is situate north of the Slyck Steegh, bounded west by Adrian Vincent, north and east by Abraham the Carpenter and south by the Steegh aforesaid broad and long according to the ground brief aforesaid . . . for sale, transport and conveyance of which lot aforesaid, the abovenamed Deaconry acknowledges and declares to be well and thankfully satisfied and paid the sum of three hundred guilders for which the lot aforesaid is sold.
Cousseau was one of the witnesses to this deed, and acquired a half-interest in the property. By April, 1667, a horse-mill had been built here by the parties in interest, as is proved by the next transaction, dated October 15, 1667:
Before us undersigned Aldermen of the City of New York appeared Sr Govert Loocquermans merchant of the said City who certified and declared (by virtue of a Patent by him the appearer and Jacques Cosseau in Company obtained from the Heer Governor Richard Nicols on the 3*? April last) in right true and free ownership, as to him the appearer was ceded transported and conveyed to cede transport and convey to and to the behoof of Sr Jacques Cousseau merchant in the said City his the appearers share and interest in a certain lot house and horsemill, with all the appurtenances earth and nail fast. . . . The said lot house and horsemill enclosed built on and fenced standing and being within this City in the Slyck Steegh (Dirty lane) having to the west Adrian Vincent, . . . — Book of Records of Deeds y Transfers (etc.), 1665-1672 (translated), 1 14-16; for dimensions see Key to Map of Dutch Grants.
This is the earliest mention of a horse mill on this plot. There was an earlier mill on the south side of the lane, Block N, No. 8.
Cousseau conveyed the property, on September 4, 1672, to Carsten Jansen Eggert, a miller, as "a certaine Lott of ground w*^ a house and horsmill thereuppon." — Liber Deeds, B: 178, 200; cf. Book of Records of Deeds y Transfers (etc.), 1665-1672 (translated), 227-8.
The Tax List of 1677, itemizes, in the Mill Street Lane, "Corsten Johnston; Ditto Mill house." — M. C. C, I: 58. The same list mentions "The Bark Mill corner," next to "Mother Drissius." — Ibid., I: 59. The bark-mill, at that time, stood on the north side of the present Exchange Place, west of Broad Street. — Liber Deeds, B: 203; Original Book of N. Y. Deeds, in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Collections, 1913, p. 12; Liber Deeds, XII: 30.
It cannot be disputed that the horse-mill on the site of Nos. 32 and 34 South William Street was erected after; January, 1663; it is almost equally certain that it was a flour-mill, and not a bark-mill.