Aside from some speculation about the dialogue between the victim and the man convicted of killing her, this is a fairly straightforward ballad about a murder case that has generated much manufactured controversy.
In April 1913, thirteen year old Mary Phagan was found brutally murdered in the basement of the pencil factory where she worked, by the Negro security man Newt Lee, and although the investigation was far from exemplary, and included two exhumations of the body, the police eventually focused their attention on two suspects: the quite wealthy manager and part owner of the factory, Leo Frank, and Jim Conley, a low class, semi-literate Negro of poor character with a liking for drink.
While Frank pleaded total ignorance of the crime, he was the last person (bar one?) to see the victim alive, but Conley implicated him claiming he'd bribed him to dispose of the body. Because of the bizarre nature of some of the evidence - two crudely forged letters found at the crime scene which Conley admitted writing - there was really no question about his involvement.
Frank was indicted and convicted primarily on the evidence of Conley, and sentenced to death, though this sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. That might have been the end of the matter, but in August 1915 a lynch mob, the self-styled "Knights of Mary Phagan", broke into the prison where Frank was being held, kidnapped him and strung him up.
Deplorable though this second murder was, the exploitation of this case by agenda driven special interest groups has brought nothing but discredit to those who with shrill insistence proclaim Frank's innocence against the weight of the evidence. Leo Frank was a Jew, and these groups would have the world believe that his prosecution and conviction amounted to a mini-pogrom. There was indeed racial bigotry in this case, but it was all on the side of the defense.
In his 1966 book The Lynching Of Leo Frank, a seemingly oblivious Henry Golden quotes Frank's lawyer who said of Jim Conley:
"Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black drunken, lying nigger... Who was it that made this dirty nigger come up here looking so slick? Why didn't they let you see him as he was?"
Frank himself made similar disparaging comments suggesting that it was absurd to indict him on the word of a "black brute".
Even in the Deep South in a 1913 segregated Georgia, this sort of inflammatory language can only have alienated a jury of ordinary decent white men.
Leo Frank was lynched not because he was a Jew but because he was convicted on credible evidence of the murder of a child, a conviction by a jury of his peers that was upheld by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, after being sentenced to a year on a chain gang for his part in covering up the crime, Jim Conley lived to a fair age unmolested by the supposedly so bigoted white people of the Deep South.
Commenting fifty years after the case, McLellan Smith, who covered the story as a cub reporter, wrote that a man of Conley's mental capacity could have been broken if he was lying, adding that he certainly impressed on the witness stand.
In 1986, under continued pressure including new evidence of doubtful probity, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a posthumous pardon, but without addressing the question of his (proven) guilt.
Carson's song sums up the mood of the time, which was not anti-Semitism, rather a sense of outrage that a man should murder a child and attempt to avoid justice by hiring expensive lawyers and casting unwarranted aspersions on his principal accuser.
After Governor Slaton commuted Frank's death sentence, Carson wrote another version of the song in which he accused him of taking a million dollar bribe from a New York bank. He ended up in gaol for slander.