About a subject such as "John Henry," every available fact has a testimonial source, a version of the ballad, a passed-around story, other hearsay, or someone's years-after-the-fact recollection. In practice, what this means is that every available fact is likely to be wrong. Nothing is inherently reliable.

How can one find the truth? "garbage in -> garbage out" Right?

Maybe, but "likely to be wrong" doesn't mean that it's all wrong. The problem them boils down to deciding which testimony is most likely to be true.

I've used the following criteria (and perhaps others that I can't recall off the top of my head).

(1) Inherent credibility.

Before checking up on any of his facts, the testimony of C. C. Spencer struck me as "dripping with authenticity" (Legman's phrase - he applied it to something else). It is an eyewitness account, it is very detailed, and Spencer was forthcoming with a second statement when Johnson asked for more. Spencer appears to have been doing his best to cooperate and help Johnson, giving many details.

The only other eye-witness account, that of Neal Miller at Big Bend, struck me in just the opposite way. It is sketchy and evasive. Further, his two testimonies differ in some details.

On these grounds alone, I give Spencer's testimony much more credence.

(2) Consistency with other personal testimony.

Spencer's testimony is supported, with no significant contradictions, by letters from F. P. Barker, Glendora Cannon Cummings, and C. S. Farquason. Barker was a steel driver who knew John Henry. Cumming's uncle "was working by John Henry and saw him when he beat the steam drill and fell dead." Farquason was an official of the Public Works Department of Jamaica. The testimonies of all three support Spencer's in various ways.

Spencer's contention that John Henry and his boss were both from Mississippi agrees with the 1955 testimony of Mrs. C. T. Davis, Leeds, Alabama.

Neal Miller's testimony is somewhat supported by some and contradicted by some. The whole of testimony from Big Bend, from many informants, about a dozen of whom were at Big Bend during its construction, is incoherent.

(3) Consistency with documentation.

Spencer and others gave facts that could be checked out. Spencer made some errors, but he got a lot right. One thing he got right was the name of one of John Henry's bosses, "Dabner." Cummings said, "Dabney," and Farquason said, "Dabner." Captain Frederick Yeamans Dabney was Chief Engineer for the C & W, in charge of design and construction, 1887-88. Spencer got a lot more right, including that Captain Dabney was from Mississippi.

(4) Consistency with tradition.

I've scoured versions of "John Henry," looking for things that would favor Alabama over West Virginia. I've turned up about a dozen, nine of which are mentioned in my article. Individually, these don't carry much weight. Collectively, I think they are significant. Thus, the line, "John Henry died on a Tuesday," is consistent with Spencer's date, "the 20th of September," when Spencer's year (1882) is corrected to the actual year of building the C & W, 1887. The phrase that puts John Henry "between them mountains" applies much better to Oak and Coosa Mountains, Alabama, than to the Big Bend area.

(5) Accomodation to documentation.

Here's where the controversial "Maggadee" argument comes in. There is a documented Copiah County, Mississippi, Henry Dabney/Dabner, who married Margaret in 1869. He is a candidate for John Henry. Margaret's name can be accomodated to the commonly occurring "Polly Ann" through a series of plausible mutations. Nerd doesn't this this necessary and doesn't see that it adds anything. I almost agree - I think it adds a smidgen.

In any event, I think that the Alabama scenario is by far the most consistent with all the information available at this time.

Die-hard Big Benders, and there are many, do not agree. I await their construction of a scenario with as many sound connections to documentation as the Alabama scenario has.