King Philip's War Wasn't Fought At the Conjuring House Property

Encyclopedia Britannica

In recent years there have been statements made by people representing The Conjuring House  (man, how I despise that name) regarding the history of the land. First and foremost, the area known as Harrisville, a small village within the confines of a much larger area known as Burrilville, did not really even begin to have settlers making homesteads until the 18th Century. With that being said, when the mention of  King Philip's War gets brought up, it is laughable to me that they would make the ridiculous claim that there were battles on the property where the Richardson-Arnold house is located. 

Number one, the parcel of land that exists today that is owned by the current owner of the Richardson-Arnold house is only 8.5 acres. The original land deed was well over 1000 acres. That is a tiny, itty-bitty fraction of the original property. When the King Phillip's War took place the majority of battles were in areas where there were a populace of settlers gathered together. 

The area where Harrisville was, was literally considered "not worth surveying for settlement purposes since these outlands are too far from Providence," according to the Blackstone Heritage Corridor's historical walking tour pamphlet.

Recently, in a Youtube video titled "Boycotting The Conjuring House," former owner Corey Heinzen tried to discredit my historical statements I made in a recent Youtube Video by "The Side Eye Guy." 

According to Corey, who gets really angry when mentioning me ( see the 32 minute mark of the video), he tries to turn everything around on me as if I don't know the history of the King Phillip's War.

Corey's statement: 

"J'aime Rubio went on, was it SEG's freakin' (unintelligible) and she was saying 'oh the King's Phillip's war wasn't fought there,'.... it was fought there!  She's, she was trying to narrow it down to a specific battle, there wasn't a specific battle fought there. The war was fought all over Rhode Island."

Actually, no I wasn't narrowing it down to a specific battle.  I was very matter of fact in the video, that there is no evidence that any battle(s), that's plural, meaning more than one, were fought there, period. A property cannot be mentioned as being haunted for being involved in the King Phillip's war when there are no records showing that it was. 

Fact, the war was fought in certain areas of Rhode Island, not ALL OVER Rhode Island. Again, if you were to do some rudimentary research you would know this.

Corey goes even further with, "and yet she's trying to narrow it down to, 'oh! it was fought right here on this property'  No Mother - - - - - -! (unintelligible). God No! People don't understand they think they do the research correctly, but they're not. They're just jumping to a conclusion. Now, does she have a lot of good points? Absolutely. However, not with that. And that's what aggravates me. Because it's like, so you're throwing out a total, which kind of makes sense, even though it's a theory, but you're just going to throw it out because you think, the battle was fought here."

Correction again -- No, I never said that. I didn't come up with some theory here. 

It has been implied by others that the property is haunted because of it having "survived" the King Philips war.

The property was literally forests during that time period, and had no one living on or near that site during that time period. People settled together in groups back then, because there was safety in numbers, to avoid being attacked by Indians.

My statement on the Side Eye Guy's video was to give folks a history lesson that the war was fought in OTHER areas of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, but not anywhere near the property. Something the average person wouldn't have a clue of.   

Let's take a look at a few maps, shall we? If you look below I have highlighted in red the area where the house on Round Top Road is located according to the map. Where the word or name Narrangansett is on the map, the area where the "a" is encased in red, that is the approximate area where the house is located. 

Now, remember, the house did not exist when the King Phillip's War happened between June 20, 1675 and April 12, 1678.  White settlers did not live in that area at that time, as it was considered an outland of forests. 

Per Historian Elise Giammarco Carlson, "This is one of several maps I found. Where "Narragansett" is spelled sideways....the house is on the line between R.I. and M.A., approximately where the "A" lies. You know, in the big, empty hole between settlements and battles." -- 

Do you see any black dots at or near the red square? No, you do not. Because there were no English settlements in that area, and no attacks were made near there. 

Let's take a look at some more information..... 

I have marked on the map below in a small red square where the Richardson-Arnold house is approximately. Do you see any battles within the red square? No.

You can see a orange arrow showing where English offensives traveled towards Nipsachuck, which we will delve into in just a moment. Looking at the areas on the map, you can plainly see there were no battles on or near the house.

Let's go even deeper into the history.....

According to the book, "Soldiers In King Philips War," by George Bodge, 1891. Bodge mentions briefly that "the English left their horses with a guard , and, with the Mohegans in the van, marched silently forward to a field, at a place called "Nipsachick" (said to be within the present town of Burrillville, R.I.)  The night being very dark, they were forced to wait for light. At dawn they made their attack upon what provide to be Weetamoo's camp. The Indians were taken by surprise and fled, leaving everything behind them. But the Mohegan's and English rushing forward found themselves confronted with Philip's fighting men entrenched behind trees and rocks ready for battle. Adopting the tactics of the enemy, the English and their allies engated them fiercely until 9 o'clock, when still fighting desparately, but with powder nearly spent, the hostiles sullenly retired, leaving many of their dead upon the field. Some twenty three of the enemy were killed, it is said, including a prominent chief Woonashum, called by the English, Nimrod. Of the English, two were killed and one wounded."--- Page 15.

In reality though, Nipsachick, or later "Nipsachuck," was not in Burrillville. 

The First Battle of Nipsachuck as it would later be called, took place on August 4, 1675 in North Smithfield, which is approximately 12 miles from the Richardson-Arnold House. The Second Battle of Nipsachuck took place at Mattity Swamp on July 2, 1676, which is still considered to be within the area of North Smithfield, and approximately 10 miles away from the house as well.

According to a direct descendant of the Richardson-Arnold house's original inhabitants, and certified genealogist, Pam Kenyon Cardin, no battles during the King Philip's War took place near her ancestral home on Round Top Road. In fact, Pam had made this remark when we discussed the accusations made about different types of events at her ancestral home's property. When she mentions the word "mess" she was speaking about the lies being told about the property's history, as she was keeping a record or notes on each allegation.

"Somewhere amongst the mess was a notation about the farm being an active site for King Phillip's war. No. Most of that took place in southern R.I. and in the Great Swamp. Also, in Bristol County, Mass. NOT IN BURRILLVILLE. There were certainly Native Americans living in Burrillville. Many, in fact. Hence why my great grandfather called the dairy "Indian Acres." We have many artifacts from their habitation. In a book Wallum Pond Estates, it gives a brief history of the Native Americans living in the area. I have no idea where the bit about King Phillip came from. Unless someone read various Native American names and somehow decided they must be connected. NOPE. Ah, what a little bit of research could have done for some of these people."--  Pam Kenyon Cardin, 2023.

According to the book, "Wallum Pond Estates," by Harry Lee Barnes in 1877, it states on page 8, that "Ten miles southeasterly of Wallum Pond in Nipsachuck, a place through which King Phillip passed in his flight westward to the Nipmuck country."  That is the only mention of that war in his book after that. And it correlates with the story in the other book, which took place in present day North Smithfield, not Harrisville, Burrillville. 

Fact, there are NO RECORDS or DOCUMENTATION whatsoever that prove ANY sort of battle between Native Americans and English Settlers or Soldiers took place in Harrisville, let alone at the property on Round Top Road. That is my point. Just because a war took place in various spots in Massachusetts and Rhode Island DOES NOT mean that every square inch of those states saw fighting between settlers and Indians. It was in specific documented locations. 

It isn't a THEORY, it is a FACT.  

Yes, there were battles in different areas in Rhode Island, but not on the land where this historic house is situated.

In ending this blog post today, I hope that you have walked away with a better understanding of the history of the property and the general area of that part of Rhode Island. It is easy to make statements when you do not have documentation to back up what you are saying. I do not make statements without having researched the subject before hand. I strongly recommend that anyone wanting to know the truth about the history of the area, to do thorough research on the topic before going on the record and making opinionated statements about it. 

(Copyright 2024 - J'aime Rubio  www.jaimerubiowriter.com) 

 

The Ancestral Genealogy of the Richardson-Arnold House (Part 1)

Photo of the Arnold Family (late 1800's) original property of Arnold/Butterworth/Kenyon Family 

There has been a lot of television programs, blogs, newspaper articles, a few books and even a movie attempting to tell the story of this house, and yet only a few people have been able to tell the facts surrounding whether or not the events claimed in the film, "The Conjuring," by either the Perron family or the Warren's actually took place on this old farm. Even "The Conjuring House" website has a short blurb summarizing the history of the home, although some of it is incorrect, and I will go over that with you here and on other blogs at a future date. Join me today, as I take you back in time to revisit the former residents of the home. 

This will be the first of two blog posts regarding the ancestral genealogy of the people who lived on the property.  I will keep posting more information on the true history of the home, as well as my fact based conclusions resulting from my thorough research to figure out why this whole "ghost story" has taken on a life of its own within this blog site over time.

The area which we know today as Burrillville, Rhode Island, consists of 14 villages spread over 55 square miles. The property the Conjuring House is situated on is within the village of Harrisville, which was named after Andrew Harris, who purchased the area in the early 1800's (which was earlier known as Rhodesville). Prior to that, the land encompassing Burrillville had originally been considered part of Glocester, which is actually about 6 miles south of Harrisville. 

It had been alleged that back in the 1600's, the land was "not worth surveying for settlement purposes since these outlands are too far from Providence," according to Blackstone Heritage Corridor's historical walking tour pamphlet.  You see, although Roger Willams established Glocester and other Providence Plantations, that didn't mean he ever stood on this particular property when it was deeded to the Richardson family. 

According to the genealogical records by Pamela Kenyon Cardin (a direct descendant of the original families who owned the property), the original homestead for the Richardson family was closer to the Massachusetts border on what was the original land owned by the family. 

Going back to the early 1700's, the property consisted of over a thousand acres of land, which is no longer part of the "Conjuring House" property today. Over the time, parcels were broken up and sold off, and once the Perron's purchased the home, the land was significantly smaller than when the original families owned it.

It is my belief due to the timeline of events, that Isaac Richardson and his wife, Deborah Fuller were more than likely the original family to be deeded the land. This doesn't mean that they lived on the land per se, it just means they were more than likely the ones who were deeded that land. Records show that Isaac was born on May 24, 1643, in Woburn, Massachusetts Bay Colony. He married Deborah Fuller on June 19, 1667, in Woburn, Massachusetts. He would have died shortly after having been deeded that land in present day Burrillville, which would mean his son, Johnathan Richardson would have inherited the property. Did they build a home on it then? There's really no way to know for sure. Deeds going back that far are difficult to locate, and many times dwellings weren't always recorded as such. 

Despite what many people assume, there is no evidence that King Philip's War (1675-1676) actually took place on that specific property. Yes, we know there were conflicts in Massachusetts and even the town of Providence was burned in 1676, however, there is no record that a specific battle took place on the exact land that this house was built on. 

Another thing to note, during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) the only documented battle nearby was in Newport, which is about 60 miles southeast of Burrillville. With that being said, let's go to the next phase in this home's history.

Johnathan Richardson was born on December 12, 1669, in Woburn, Massachusetts Bay Colony. He married Mary Isaac Cutler, and the two of them settled in Glocester, Rhode Island. Now you have to remember, Burrillville didn't exist at this time, so that area was still considered part of Glocester.  Johnathan and Mary went on to have at least three children that I could locate: Isaac, Johnathan and Miriam. 

Did they build the first structure on that massive piece of land? Possibly. There are ruins of the original homestead close to the Massachusetts border of that original property, which would have been the first home to be built on the Richardson land, it is just not certain which of the Richardsons were the first to build that earlier structure.

Personally, based on the records and research of Pam Kenyon Cardin, since her genealogical research dates the Richardson-Arnold house back to closer to 1725 (not 1736 as stated on a plaque at the house*), the more logical conclusion would be that the later structure/home on this land, near Round Top Road was built by or for Isaac Richardson, the son of Johnathan and Mary. 

Isaac married Sarah Aldrich in Glocester on July 17, 1732, and although records indicate that he died at the age of 83 years old in Mendon, Worcester, Massachusetts, it is still possible that at one time he resided in Glocester.  Isaac would pass away at the age of 83, on April 20, 1784. I could not locate a date of death for Sarah, so it is the writer's belief she predeceased her husband.

Next down the line in the family tree would be Joseph Richardson and Susannah Smith. Joseph was born in 1726, in Glocester, Rhode Island to Isaac and Sarah Richardson. He had three siblings that we know of: David, Deborah and Samuel. 

Joseph married Susannah Smith on June 11, 1751 in Glocester.  They went on to have three children: Anne, Joseph Jr., and Sarah.  Joseph would pass away on September 29, 1764, at the young age of 39 years. His wife, Susannah would live to be 51 years old, passing away in 1775, in Providence. 

It was through Anne, John and Susannah's eldest daughter that the property would eventually merge into the "Richardson-Arnold" estate, when Anne married Noah Arnold, Jr., on July 21, 1768. Their union would bring forth eight children: Sarah, Bradford, Nathan, John, Benedict, Anna, Olive and Phoebe. 

So, we know that Anne and Noah lived in the house that stands today, and they raised 8 children there. Noah Arnold, Jr., would pass away on June 20, 1822, while his wife, Anne Richardson Arnold would live another 25 years, passing away at the age of 97, in 1847. Out of Anne and Noah's children, their son, John would later take over ownership of the farm along with his wife, Abigail Cook Arnold. 

For the record, we do not know when John took over the farm. More than likely it was after the death of his father, when normally an estate is passed down to the children. With that respect, that would mean that John and his wife, and young children more than likely lived elsewhere within the area, until Noah's passing in 1822. 

Going back to the story....

John Arnold was born around 1773, on the farm. He married Abigail Cook Arnold, who was born on December 24, 1775, the daughter of Martha Hopkins and Sylvanius Cook, of Glocester in 1795. The couple had at least eleven children to my knowledge: Rosamond, Sally, Manning, Stephen, Sophia, Olive, Ellen, Elmira, John Jr., Mary and Smith. Did their children grow up on this property? I cannot say for certain, as again, the property more than likely was passed down once the family patriarch (grandfather) passed.

From that generation it appears that Stephen would later inherit the farm, when John Arnold passed away on September 19, 1837 at the age of 64 years. His wife, Abigail Cook Arnold would pass away 32 years later on February 10, 1869, at the age of 93. 

Time rolls on, and later we find Stephen Arnold and his wife, Sally Margery Eddy Arnold running the farm. Stephen was born in 1805, just around the time that Burrillville was "established." He married Sally Margery Eddy, the daughter of  Doctor Levi Eddy and Prusia Aldrich. The pair had ten children that I could locate: Edwin, Prusia, Stephen Jr., George, Albert, Mowry, Emeline, Sarah, Abigail and Levi. Of the ten children, all grew to be adults, except for Abigail and Levi. It appears Abby passed away at the age of 5 years in 1848, and Levi passed away at the age of 14 in 1859. According to Pam Kenyon Cardin, the two children had passed away from Typhoid.*

(* I had originally believed they had died from Typhus but according to Pam, she believed it was actually Typhoid). 

Is there a record of this? Their deaths are recorded in genealogical record, but not cause of death. Pam Kenyon Cardin had her family Bible and she stated that the two children of Sally Eddy and their causes of death were mentioned in it. According to Pam, Sally also passed away on October 3, 1844, from Typhoid as well. Interestingly enough, Sally passed away before her two children, so thankfully she didn't have to experience the heartache of losing any of her children while she was alive.  Stephen Arnold would pass away five years later, on October 25, 1849. 

Another thing to mention, Pam Kenyon Cardin explained that Stephen and Sally did live on the farm and did raise their children there. This much we know from her personal family genealogical records and family Bible.

Moving forward, it was Edwin Arnold who would later live at the property and run the farm with his family. Edwin was born at the farm on February 28, 1821. He was married to Adeline Caswell in 1851 in Burrillville. They had three children that I could find information on: Abigail Frances Arnold, John Allen Arnold and Fremont Arnold. 

The 1860 Census lists Edwin as a farmer, along with his wife Adeline, children: Abby (8), John (5) and Fremont (3), as well as Eunice Burlingame (7), Willis (3), Riley Barnes (50), and Eunice Caswell (69). It appears that Eunice Caswell was Adeline's mother, and the rest were obviously relatives, except for Riley, who was a farm laborer.

The 1870 Census lists Edwin again as a farmer, along with Adeline, children: Abby (18), John (15), Fremont (13), along with Riley Barnes (59), Sturbridge Taft (27) both listed as farm laborers, Prudence Taft (18) as a house keeper and Ednah (2). It is obvious that Sturbridge and Prudence were a married couple with their child, Ednah, living and working on the farm for the family.

On July 9, 1871, Abigail Frances Arnold would wed Sumner Walling in Douglas, Massachusetts. The couple would have one child together Sumner, Jr., who was born in 1874. This year would prove to be a difficult one for poor Abby, as the child would not live to be one years old.  Did the child die shortly after birth, or a childhood illness? According to Pam Cardin Kenyon's family records, they vaguely stated the child died from a disease. 

On May 27, 1874, Abby's husband, Sumner would also die, but this time it would be from an accidental drowning in Douglas, Worcester, Massachusetts, where he is also buried. After these two horrible events, Abby moved back home to her parents farm in Burrilville. 

The 1880 Census lists Edwin as a farmer, Adeline, their adult children: Abby (28), John (25), Fremont (23), Riley Barnes (72). All of the men are working for the family as a farmer laborers.

Edwin's wife, Adeline would pass away on December 18, 1883, from Tuberculosis. 

Please take note of the photograph posted at the top of this blog, which has been widespread over the years to perpetuate "The Conjuring" story, was more than likely taken sometime in the late 1800's, thus the people listed in the 1870-1880 census' are more than likely those within the photograph, along with relatives who may have been visiting or even possibly close friends from a neighboring property. 

The photo was property of the Arnold family, which was passed down through Abigail Butterworth down to her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, eventually belonging to the Kenyon family. Per former owner, Norma Sutcliffe, "This was a picture that was taken, that was handed down from the Arnold family. I was given a copy of the original and, sadly, I gave it to Andrea Perron. This was all long before the movie."-- 

So we know now how that photo got circulated all over the internet with false information pertaining to the house and the erroneous story of Bathsheba Sherman.

Going back to the history....

On October 24, 1903, while walking home one evening, Edwin disappeared. His body was located against a rock wall on Smith Aldrich's farm on December 17, 1903. Apparently, he stopped to rest due to exhaustion and he died from exposure from the cold. His body had missing for nearly two months. 

The newspaper clipping of the discovery read:

"FOUND AT LAST -- The Body of Edwin Arnold Discovered by a Hunter Yesterday Morning.

Yesterday morning about 7:25 o'clock the body of Edwin Arnold, who disappeared October 24th, was found by Frank Pierce beside a stone wall on the Smith Aldrich farm. Mr. Pierce was hunting in the vicinity and came upon the body suddenly as he approached a stone wall. The position of the body was such as would suggest that Mr. Arnold had sat down or reclined to rest and death overtook him before he was ready to go on."-- Pascoag Herald, 12/18/1903

It goes on to detail that he had been trying to take a short cut, by cutting through various farms, to avoid the highway, when he probably grew tired and stopped to take a rest, only to pass away in the freezing weather temperatures.

 "The funeral of the later Edwin Arnold was held from his residence on the Douglas Road last Saturday afternoon at 1 o'clock and was attended by many relatives and friends. Rev. Walter Ela, pastor of the Laurel Hill M.E. Church, officiated. the bearers were Smith B. Mowry, A.B. White, Sewell Chace and Horace Arnold. Interment was in the family lot in the Tassel Top Cemetery." -- Pascoag Herald, 12/25/1903

His will would later show that the property and his $1,200 in bonds were left to his sons, John and Fremont. 

One thing I would like to bring up while we are on the subject of Edwin, in a recent Facebook post the administrator of The Conjuring House's Facebook page made a comment about Edwin when they posted some videos of visiting one of the Arnold family plots to leave flowers. The poster goes on to say this of Edwin, "He was not known to be a particularly loving spirit but we sent him love and remembrance. Remember, hurt people, hurt people. We don't know what wounded Edwin to make him an irascible spirit What I do know is that It's never too late to heal our wounds and become better people or spirits for it."

The question I have for the poster is: Where on earth did you get the idea that Edwin was an unkind person or easily angered person? Do you have some written documentation, a biography of sorts written by Edwin or people who knew him, that said he was not a very nice person? You say that hurt people tend to hurt people, but how would you know that he hurt anyone? He could have been a very kind person in life. The fact is that you know nothing about Edwin. You shouldn't make accusations about someone's character if you don't know anything about them personally.  

For the record, we do not know what type of person Edwin was, nice or not. So we have NO RIGHT whatsoever to say anything bad about him, other wise that would be slander. --  Also, why post a video of Prudence Arnold's grave when she has absolutely nothing to do with the history of the house? It was a tragedy how she was murdered, no doubt, but by posting her grave on the page it only further confuses people who aren't aware of the truth, that Prudence Arnold's life and death had nothing to do with the Richardson-Arnold house. She lived and was murdered in Uxbridge, Massachusetts.

In ending, this first part of my ancestral genealogy blog post, we have learned that there have been many people who have lived and died on the property from old age perhaps and illness, but there are no records of any sort of foul play, accident or suicide on this property. Although Edwin died, he did not die on this property, and Sally Eddy and her two children died of illness. It is safe to conclude that there were many deaths prior to and up to this point in the home's history, based on the fact that there were many generations who lived here and grew old here. Family took care of their elderly until they passed away, but that didn't mean anything negative took place on the property.

CLICK HERE TO READ  PART 2. The Ancestral History of the Richardson-Arnold House. 

-(COPYRIGHT - J'aime Rubio, 2024, www.jaimerubiowriter.com ) 

* The plaque you see at the house that says the house was built in 1736 is not accurate. The date was etched in cement on a back step when Norma lived there. You must remember that cement wasn't readily available until the late 1800's and the early 1900's, so the date that was placed on the step had been done well over a hundred years after the home was built, perhaps even later. There is no way to know when the cement step was put in, and just who decided to add that date to it. 

**All the content that is published on this site or any of my blogs under my profile J'aime Rubio or Dreaming Casually © is my property and is protected by all applicable Copyright Laws. No part of my work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from me, the publisher/author J'aime Rubio.-- jaimerubiowriter.com**