I'm researching the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Southeast Crescent Authority for an upcoming entry. As part of that research, I've been reading through Appalachia: A Report by the President's Appalachian Regional Commission, 1964, which is exactly what it sounds like.
A few pages in, I found this:
A few pages in, I found this:
Take a closer look at two of those names:
I found it striking that the signatures of these two men were listed side-by-side because their visions for the South differed so dramatically. Within a four day span in January 1963 (a year before they would have signed the ARC document), each gave a speech that directly addressed how the "race problem" in the South should be addressed - Wallace gave his now-infamous "segregation forever" speech, while Sanford gave what is now known as his "Second Emancipation" speech.
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." - Inaugural Address, January 1963 | "The time has come for American citizens...to quit unfair discrimination to give the negro a full chance to earn a decent living for his family and to contribute to higher standards for himself and for all men." - Speech to the North Carolina Press Association, January 1963 |
Altogether, this brings up a number of questions.
Did Wallace knowingly sign on to a federal commission, despite his efforts to content that segregation was a states' rights issue? Did he not see the significant overlap between anti-poverty and desegregation efforts? Did he think that the ARC would have no bearing on segregation? Did the two ever meet in person? Was Sanford's address a response of sorts to Wallace? So much to learn here.
The South's history is fraught with contradictions and complications. Add this one to the list.
[Find Greenfield Southeast on Facebook!]
Did Wallace knowingly sign on to a federal commission, despite his efforts to content that segregation was a states' rights issue? Did he not see the significant overlap between anti-poverty and desegregation efforts? Did he think that the ARC would have no bearing on segregation? Did the two ever meet in person? Was Sanford's address a response of sorts to Wallace? So much to learn here.
The South's history is fraught with contradictions and complications. Add this one to the list.
[Find Greenfield Southeast on Facebook!]