Notes for chapter 6, “Tom the Tinker”. Tom the Tinker is not securely reducible to one identified person. Hogeland disputes earlier historians' dating of Faulkner-related threats.
Source-grounded analytical paraphrase, not a direct quotation or independent corroboration.
Mingo Creek organization, threats, damaged property and collective intimidation helped suppress compliance. Organized resistance could pressure neighbors as well as officials; petitioning and coercive action were not equivalent.
Chapter 6, “Tom the Tinker”
Chapter 6, “Tom the Tinker”
Verified as a faithful paraphrase of the supplied source and its qualifications. Historical truth, inferred motives and primary-document quotations are NOT independently verified by this status. Crosswalk verified 2026-09-16 against contents and chapter/Notes openings. Internal coordinates before this update: PDF screen 106 to PDF screen 119.
No access
Source-checked paraphrase; not a primary quotation or independent historical verification.
Evidence
Mingo Creek organization, threats, damaged property and collective intimidation helped suppress compliance. Organized resistance could pressure neighbors as well as officials; petitioning and coercive action were not equivalent.
Location and context
Chapter 6, “Tom the Tinker”. Chapter and section titles were checked against the supplied ebook. Original screen coordinates remain in Verification Notes for internal retrieval; no print-page equivalence is asserted.
Annotation
Notes for chapter 6, “Tom the Tinker”. Tom the Tinker is not securely reducible to one identified person. Hogeland disputes earlier historians' dating of Faulkner-related threats.