William Mack Lee Outed in Confederate Veteran

This is a follow up to an earlier post about the dedication of a headstone for William Mack Lee by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

This afternoon a good friend contacted me after having looked into the claim made by William Mack Lee that he served in the 27th Virginia Infantry and as a cook for R.E. Lee. It should come as no surprise that there is no compiled service record for WML in that unit. More interesting, however, is a thorough debunking of WML’s claims of having served as R.E. Lee’s personal body servant in the September 1927 issue (p. 324) of Confederate Veteran by none other than the magazine’s editor, E.D. Pope. I encourage you to read it for yourself.

William Mack LeeThe interesting thing from my vantage point is the emphasis right at the beginning of the article on ‘debunking’ WML’s claim to have been a “real friend” of R.E. Lee. Confederate veterans and white Southerners generally welcomed those African Americans who played to the Lost Cause narrative by expressing their undying loyalty to former masters and the Confederacy, but this account points to a line that could not be crossed.

The ridiculousness of the claim to have been a ‘real friend’ of General Lee is only equaled by the absurdity of the stories told by the old negro. If General Lee ever made a confidant of anyone with whom he was associated it is not known, and much less he would have revealed himself to a negro servant. (emphasis added)

This brief reference fits into a broader picture of the relationship between Confederate veterans and former slaves during the postwar years. They did not gather at reunions and other public events as equals. White Southerners used these occasions to reinforce the racial hierarchy and demanded unquestioned compliance from their former slaves. We have already seen that former slaves such as Steve Eberhart used their roles for financial gain and it looks like WML attempted to do the same. Claiming a close relationship with Lee, however, was apparently unacceptable.

The warning to the “press of the country” about accepting stories like WML’s certainly applies to the many news outlets and social media channels today that continue to pass these stories on without any kind of fact checking.

As for the Norfolk County Grays Camp No. 1549, Sons of Confederate Veterans, who recently dedicated a headstone for WML, all I can say is that they look like complete fools. And that is putting it kindly. They are promoting a story that not even their Confederate ancestors believed.

58 comments… add one
  • mica davis Jul 6, 2020 @ 21:32

    Is that the whole article? It started off with the decidedly racist assertion that Lee would never befriend a black man, which seems valid given his well documented racism but relies on its intrinsic allegation of racism. Isn’t that what’s known as begging the question? It then goes on to detail some of the accounts of this guy without details about how they depart from historical fact. I understand that since there is no actual evidence of the validity of his story no evidence is necessary to dismiss it, but they didn’t even address what ‘information’ he did give. Is there something specifically wrong about his narrative that I missed in reading that article twice? That seems like an early example of poor journalism. I’m not suggesting that it’s true, but they could have put more effort into explaining why it isn’t…

    • Kevin Levin Jul 7, 2020 @ 1:00

      Hi Mica,

      Confederate Veteran was the official magazine of the United Confederate Veterans. The entry is a wonderful example of how white southerners viewed black Americans at the turn of the twentieth century. Many of the articles in CV depict faithful slaves, who remained obedient to their former masters and Confederate memory decades after the war. Mack Lee stepped out of his proper space with his claims about Lee and this is the response for doing so. Don’t read this as investigative journalism.

  • Lucy B Roper May 3, 2019 @ 12:23

    My late husband was a life-time member of the SCV. He thought members had lost their minds who (overwhelmingly) embraced these “Black Confederate” myths. With credentials as a retired history teacher, I agree. But I have offered to these adherents all kinds of proof “Black Confederates” were servants and not soldiers and it is like talking to a brick wall. I have lost friends of many years because they refused to believe me; saying I believe “Yankee lies,” and that I should “educate myself.” You can’t reason with these people. They are impossible. But I do appreciate your work, and I’ll be first in line to buy your forthcoming book.

    • Kevin Levin May 3, 2019 @ 12:26

      Hi Lucy,

      Thanks for sharing this. I am sorry to hear that you’ve lost friends over this issue. I appreciate the kinds words and thanks for taking a chance on the book.

  • Robert Hand Apr 24, 2018 @ 19:14

    Seeing Kevin Levin, the ultimate revisionist “historian”, as a contributor here tells me to not expect much truth here. Shame!

    • Kevin Levin Apr 25, 2018 @ 1:55

      I am just going to assume that you don’t disagree with anything written here. 🙂

      • David A. Vazquez Dec 24, 2018 @ 20:10

        I have to say sir, one common bread I’ve noticed among your posts is snarkiness and rudeness. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong, it just makes it appear that you are ill-mannered, and I can’t imagine it would help sales of your books, or support for you or what you have to say. Aren’t there ways to say things that would display better manners..? And, I can’t imagine that you speak in this way to people in person, “in real life”, as they say.

        • Kevin Levin Dec 25, 2018 @ 3:08

          Do you take issue with any of the claims in this post about Mack Lee and the SCV?

          • David A. Vazquez Dec 25, 2018 @ 4:54

            I think I made it pretty clear in one of my previous posts what I take issue with with regard to your claims about the SCV.

            • Kevin Levin Dec 25, 2018 @ 5:14

              The SCV has been consistent since the late 1970s regarding its position of the existence of black Confederate soldiers. Perhaps you should take up your concerns with the national leadership.

              • David A. Vazquez Dec 25, 2018 @ 5:20

                “The SCV has been consistent regarding its position…”. That statement is about as valid as “Latinos have been consistent regarding their position..” or “police officers around the world have been consistent regarding their position..” or “persons who drive cars have been consistent”… Again, you are treating a group of very diverse people as a monolith. And “leadership” is not an organization. Any more than a chief of police and his opinions is not indicative of what thousands of police officers think. I’m sorry, but you are treating a large group of people like a monochromatic monolith.

                • Kevin Levin Dec 25, 2018 @ 5:28

                  Spend enough time with the newsletters from individual SCV camps, re-read Confederate Veteran magazine going back to the early 1980s and you will begin to approach the range of primary sources that I have reviewed over the years and that appear in my forthcoming book about the myth of the black Confederate soldier forthcoming in 2019 with the University of North Carolina Press.

                  If you have an alternative interpretation feel free to share it, but again all you are doing is whining about a subject that you apparently know nothing about.

                  • David A. Vazquez Dec 26, 2018 @ 15:19

                    Sir, again, none of that has anything to do with my posts, which address you and your manner, as you present yourself in your own posts. Also, I have made no statements at all about the subject matter, I’ve simply made statements and observations about the way you address others and approach the subject. That’s not “whining”, that’s simply making observations about you sir. You will notice that at no time have I insulted you in any way. On the other hand, you have called me ignorant (“a subject you know nothing about”), etc. Again, this is the kind of talk that only happens from behind computers, not in person, at least not between gentlemen.
                    The rest of your post, apparently, is you hawking your book. To me, of all people. Tell you what— I will give you free exposure that you would otherwise never get. If you provide me with a copy of your book, I will review it, fairly and objectively, in the newsletter. I’ll then donate it to a library or historical society etc. I’d be glad to provide you with my address by email. If you’d be up for it, I would even interview you about the book, so you could respond.

                    Thank you.

                    • Kevin Levin Dec 26, 2018 @ 15:36

                      I don’t believe I ever called you “ignorant.” I simply asked if you have anything to add to the content of this particular post. From what I can tell, you do not. That you disapprove of my tone is of no interest to me. No one is forcing you to log onto this site multiple times in a day. I am sure you can find other things to do with your time.

                    • David A. Vazquez Dec 26, 2018 @ 15:46

                      Sir, you just attempted to hawk your book to me, on your own blog (I assume it’s yours). My offer remains— I’d be happy to review your book, if you provide me with a copy, in a fair and objective manner, so that many people who would have never otherwise heard of you, might become aware of you and your book. Then, I would be glad to interview you about it, so your comments in response would also be published.
                      You have my email sir, you may contact me at any time. I’d be glad to hear from you, I always maintain an open mind.
                      Thank you.

                    • Kevin Levin Dec 26, 2018 @ 15:51

                      I am not hawking anything. You are free to purchase it when it is published and I welcome your thoughts about it as I do anyone else who reads it. That is all.

  • Alice Lynch Aug 24, 2017 @ 10:22

    The fairy tale of William Lee Mack is rearing its head again, this time in support of the Lee monuments in Virginia. Your article has come in handy to try to educate people on the fallacy of the story of this “obedient and reverent slave” that the Lost Cause proponents like to celebrate. One former Facebook friend has posted the book, retrieved from the UNC website, and over 1,200 persons have shared it as proof that their beloved General Lee was a friend to the black man. Thank you for trying to keep people honest. Your blog is a helpful resource – and a true source of Civil War history unlike our bronze second-place trophies sprinkled heavily throughout the south.

    • David A. Vazquez Dec 24, 2018 @ 19:54

      May I ask what you mean by “bronze second-place trophies sprinkled heavily throughout the south”?

      • Kevin Levin Dec 25, 2018 @ 3:10

        I think she means that the monuments and statues were put up by the losers of the war.

  • Bryon Aug 23, 2017 @ 15:12

    I don’t mean a bit of harm, but any Civil War buff would have known that it was common for Black men to have served as servants to Men of importance and not to have had their names on the Rosters. In fact it was more often the case than not. I am not doubting that it could have been a hoax, but many a black man served the Confederacy and never got credit for it.

    • Kevin Levin Aug 23, 2017 @ 15:27

      Servants were not soldiers. End of story.

      • Bryon Aug 23, 2017 @ 16:08

        It was still not uncommon for black men not to have been on the company rosters. They were viewed differently than white men. I do know that some blacks were on rosters, but some rosters would list others by just one name. I don’t know how many black men even got a pension but I expect there were many that didn’t due to if no other reason than not having the educational ability to apply. Many black servants while they may not have been soldiers, served and died for their service. They played a vital role in the war effort, one that today would be done by “Soldiers”.

        • Kevin Levin Aug 23, 2017 @ 16:14

          I am not going to debate you on this. I have been writing and lecturing on this topic for years. I am close to finishing a book-length project on this subject for an academic press.

          The pension that you are referring to were organized in a few former Confederates state for former slaves who functioned as servants and not as soldiers. I have seen the rosters as well. Their inclusion did not make them soldiers. The Confederacy debated the question of whether to recruit slaves as soldiers in late 1864-65. The final decision was made in March 1865 and a few were recruited, but they never saw the battlefield.

          I recommend that you read Bruce Levine’s Confederate Emancipation for an overview of this subject.

          • David A. Vazquez Dec 24, 2018 @ 20:04

            A) You are attempting to Argue from Authority. “I have been lecturing on this topic for years… I’m about to write a book”. Irrelevant, with regards to the rightness of an issue. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just saying that often in life, those who “have been talking about an issue for a lifetime” are wrong.
            B) Are you arguing that “If the Confederacy said X, then X must be true”? I’m not sure if the Confederacy stating that they were not soldiers, actually makes them not soldiers. If the US government suddenly decided that I’m not a Marine and never was, I’m not sure if it would actually make it so. Are we taking what the Confederacy said, as gospel, so to speak?

            • Kevin Levin Dec 25, 2018 @ 3:09

              Have you done any serious research on this subject? Again, do you take issue with any of the claims in this post?

              • David A. Vazquez Dec 25, 2018 @ 4:59

                Is there a difference between “serious research” and unserious research? How do you define or grade the seriousness of research? What separates serious research from, shall we say, lighthearted or humorous research?
                And again, I think I was pretty clear about the issues I take with your posts. Can you be more specific? If so, I would be glad to address your questions.

                • Kevin Levin Dec 25, 2018 @ 5:15

                  This is getting old. Unless you want to engage on the content of this post I am going to make this your last approved comment. Thank you.

              • Andy Hall Dec 26, 2018 @ 10:24

                David, if you have a substantive disagreement with Kevin’s research, post your own original work and demonstrate where he’s wrong. Otherwise you’re just playing rhetorical games, not actually contributing anything to the discussion.

                • David A. Vazquez Dec 26, 2018 @ 15:26

                  Oh my good sir, any discussion in which I am involved benefits enormously from my participation, by virtue of my very presence in it alone. 😉

      • Bernard Jun 26, 2019 @ 14:36

        Tell that to the forty Black freed men of Gen. Forrest’s Cavalry. Well documented KEVIN

  • bob carey May 29, 2016 @ 3:54

    I,m stating the obvious, but I don’t think the “Heritage” crowd will acknowledge this research or concur with its’ evident finding. To do so would admit to their flawed research and conclusions and force them to re-evaluate all “Lost Cause” tenets.

  • Rblee22468 May 28, 2016 @ 11:43

    As if we need more evidence of WML’s history of lying, I found a newspaper article in which William Mack Lee, relates a story of Robert E. Lee’s favorite hen being hastily slaughtered and served up for dinner.


    I’d never heard this story before. While researching Lee’s many servants while at war, I came across another reference to the same story, only it isn’t William Mack Lee who killed the General’s favorite bird, it was Bryan, the Irish mess-steward. I have found the exact same story reprinted in multiple sources, all listing Bryan as the servant. The only source I can find for William Mack Lee as the servant are his own tall tales. William Mack Lee has been big time busted as a liar and a grifter, and sadly, this story is being repeated by news media and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They held an entire ceremony dedicated to this con man’s memory. If that isn’t the definition of dishonoring your ancestors, I don’t know what is.




    • Forester May 28, 2016 @ 18:31

      I never knew the bird was killed. Darn. :_(

      So anyway Rblee22468, I read William Mack Lee’s story in your link. This is the comment I left: William Mack Lee’s story is a hot mess! They cooked the bird on July 3rd 1863? He says that they were at Petersburg on that day, but that’s the day of Picket’s Charge! Also, he says Jackson was there — even though Jackson had been DEAD for two months! And Jackson was never anywhere near Petersburg. This is fourth grade history … I don’t even have to use Google to poke holes in this nonsense. That guy did not know what he was talking about. >_<

    • TFSmith May 29, 2016 @ 18:32

      More importantly, is there no one in the Southron heritage community willing to honor the gallant sacrifice of the Gallus Domesticus-Confederates, so the descendants of said GD-Confederates can acknowledge the contribution their faithful ancestors made to the cause?

      Which, of course, had nothing to do with the condition of said GD-Confederates, their supposed wish to be free range, and the alleged desires of the GD-Unionists to free their southern brethren? We all know the GD-Confederates served to prevent the intrusion of Northern chicken inspectors onto the hallowed soil of the sunny south’s coops…

      After all, the Sons of Chicken Veterans says so.

  • Phil R. May 28, 2016 @ 8:40

    This is the kind of stolen valor of which I approve. This guy was so good at his grifting game that the victims of his con are still buying into his story 100 years down the road. Supports my construct of heritage, where history plays only a minor part–one that often is not nearly as important as mythology, folklore, literary tradition and identity politics. I think it’s a valuable perspective for those of us who, trained as historians, by historians, often view heritage and history as the same thing.

    • Shoshana Bee May 28, 2016 @ 9:30

      I have been giving this term “heritage” (used in relation to the post CW) a bit of thought, lately. I believe that it is a loosely defined identity that serves as an umbrella for disenfranchised individuals to congregate under. It’s the same sort of construct that arises on a broader scale within any mass movement…..or cult.

  • Forester May 27, 2016 @ 17:29

    Dang, I wish I had been the one to find this article. I would’ve felt so proud of myself. 😀

    Excellent posting, as always. I’m still embarrassed that this happened in my neck of the woods (they even made the stone in Portsmouth). Sigh. The Norfolk Grays camp is actually pretty moderate most of the time, which makes this all the more disappointing.

    • Kevin Levin May 27, 2016 @ 17:40

      This has nothing to do with being moderate or extreme. It is about not knowing the first thing about historical research.

      • Forester May 27, 2016 @ 17:48

        I agree, of course. It’s just that moderates are usually better researchers than extremists.

        Does the SCV not have some kind of soldier/service database? I can’t imagine other heritage groups like the SAR or DAR making such a research boner.

        • Kevin Levin May 28, 2016 @ 1:30

          I agree, of course. It’s just that moderates are usually better researchers than extremists.

          I don’t know about that. Like I said, they simply don’t know how to go about the most basic historical research.

      • Shoshana Bee May 27, 2016 @ 19:32

        I have to say that of all the topics related to CW, the Black Confederate Myth has completely blindsided me. I did not see it coming via study, rather, discovered it on the blogs. I have lightly participated in a few spirited discussions on the matter, and I have discovered a couple of realities to the Myth devotees ( I’m late to the party; everyone else is probably in the know) 1. There is almost a cult-like following in the belief that if a black man was present in a CSA camp, than he must have been a Confederate soldier. 2. Any attempts to prove otherwise is to risk “dishonoring” the Black Confederate- ‘degrading’ him to role of slave/servant – therefore, to present evidence in contrary is to risk being called a racist of sorts. It is a built-in defense that on the surface, could cause someone to not want to take on the task of disproving the “honour” bestowed upon said Black Confederate. This psychological intimidation against disproving the Myth suggests to me that there is no interest in verification, accuracy, or any research in general. I can only surmise that it is the modern day expansion of the Lost Cause. I am sure that I must be stating the obvious, as others have bee at this much longer than I.

        • Forester May 28, 2016 @ 8:10

          Thank you! That is SO TRUE. The intimidation can be literal also, which is why I only use my middle name when I comment on blogs. I was doxxed in 2013 and had my family’s information falsely put on a Black Confederates blog (as evidence for the myth) against my will. And of course, I was also called a racist for recognizing that black Confederates were slaves, not soldiers.

          • Shoshana Bee May 28, 2016 @ 8:59

            To me, the propagation of the Black Confederate Myth by the heritage groups is the ultimate confluence of incongruities. In order to validate their own “heritage”, said groups must elevate those in which their CW ancestors fought to enslave. Go figure.

            • Andy Hall May 28, 2016 @ 10:23

              In order to validate their own “heritage”, said groups must elevate those in which their CW ancestors fought to enslave.


              The origins of the modern “black Confederate” movement go back to the antebellum period, when white southerners went to great effort to depict slaves as happy and contented with their lot, and the institution itself as being fundamentally benign and paternalistic. That view of the “loyal slave” follows right through the postwar period into the late 20th century, when changes in society (and particularly in popular media) made that untenable. The answer, simply, put, is to take the “loyal slave” and put him in a new, butternut uniform, fighting alongside his white brothers-in-arms to defend hearth and home.

              A hundred years ago, old black men attended Confederate reunions, sometimes dressing in military uniforms and marching in parades carrying live chickens, to the delight of the old white veterans and public. Is what Edgerton does today, in 2016, much different? Not really.

              Personally, I blame it all on Alex Haley.

              • Shoshana Bee May 28, 2016 @ 13:43

                Andy Hall: “Personally, I blame it all on Alex Haley.”

                You sent me running to the archives to recollect the reference to Roots!:

                Kevin Levin:” Throughout the postwar period and much of the 20th century, stories of loyal black Confederate soldiers were decidedly absent. This changed in 1977 following the release and success of the popular television series Roots. At the time, the leadership within the SCV expressed concern over how the institution of slavery and race relations were portrayed in the film as well as the Confederacy itself.”

                There are big gaping holes in my understanding of this topic. Thanks for the clarification.

                • Kevin Levin May 28, 2016 @ 14:24

                  You may want to read this essay, which I wrote for The Journal of the Civil War Era. Beyond that you will have to wait for my book. Big announcement likely early next month.

                  • Shoshana Bee May 28, 2016 @ 14:56

                    Fabulous article: nourishment for the hungry mind. Thank you! (once again, I realize that I do not have a single original thought on any given topic) Like everyone else, I anxiously await your book announcement.

            • Kevin Dally May 29, 2016 @ 17:27

              “To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought.:

              Yep, they have it in black & white they are to vindicate their ancestors…no matter what the means taken!

        • Rose Toth-Cates Jul 6, 2019 @ 8:10

          Your take is appreciated for those who didn’t even know this even existed at all. Thanks for the recap.

  • Kevin Dally May 27, 2016 @ 15:14

    It seems this feller isn’t the only black man to play a con on the SCV, they have a modern day song-n-dance man in the form of H. K. Edgerton, doing the same thing today.

    • Kevin Levin May 27, 2016 @ 16:41

      I am not so sure that H.K. is intentionally deceiving the SCV. That may be comforting to think.

    • Charles Smith May 11, 2020 @ 14:02

      I’ve met Mr H.K. Edgerton and he’s much more genuine than yourself. He’s dedicated to the truth though I’m quite sure he never met General Lee. The stories of negativity really started rolling a few years back when a few people decided it was easier to twist history through younger people who were looking for an axe to grind who never even lived through what really was a racist time, than teach respect for the fallen on both sides. General Lee’s opposition from the North even respected the genuineness of the man, so it seems ignorant a hundred and fifty years later to make up stories against him now that he’s gone. Those who have studied without the aid of college professors who twist feeble minds understand the importance of history across the lines. For years, there were men from Union and Confederate armies who met and recalled those days, without hate. One thing that is undeniable are those who fought and died were all Americans and ought to be treated as such.

      • Kevin Levin May 11, 2020 @ 14:30

        No, he dedicated to perpetuating a myth. In fact, I have heard H.K. refer to William Mack Lee as a devoted Confederate even though the SCV concluded he was a fraud in the very pages of Confederate Veteran magazine. But please, tell me more about those “college professors who twist feeble minds.” 🙂

  • Rblee22468 May 27, 2016 @ 13:34

    I find it interesting that this article was published in 1927. I did a search of newspaper articles on WML, and it looks like they did not start appearing until about the 1920’s. The earliest I have found yet was October 1919.

    • Andy Hall May 28, 2016 @ 6:19

      The situation with Al Arnold’s ancestor, Turner Hall, is similar — he turns up de novo in the 1930s, 70+ years after the war, telling about his close association with both Lee and Forrest, long after anyone who might effectively refute his story had gone to dust. There seems to be no contemporaneous (or even 19th century) record of his involvement in the conflict. That itself is not unusual, but the claimed close connection to famous leaders makes the record a legitimate subject for historical scrutiny.

      • Kevin Levin May 28, 2016 @ 6:43

        The Al Arnold/Turner Hall story is going to make a nice addition to my final chapter.

Now that you've read the post, share your thoughts.