In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

In an effort to place the modern struggle for civil rights in a wider context, some historians have referred to this crusade as the Second Reconstruction. While this may not be an accurate assessment for the entire grassroots campaign for freedom that accelerated after World War II, it is an appropriate label for the federal response to African-American demands that the nation come to terms with its racial sins. It is not surprising that the history of this change in federal initiatives has focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as pieces of key legislation that banned the practice of separate public accommodations and opened the voting booth to southern black people who had been disfranchised since the 1890s. Yet, if this “Second Reconstruction” classi¤cation is accurate, other facets of the federal government must be studied to understand the role Washington of¤cials played in the changing South. One place to look is at the way the Civil Rights Act affected other pieces of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society . On January 8, 1964, in his ¤rst State of the Union address, Johnson laid out the future plans of his administration in the aftermath of John Kennedy’s assassination. LBJ did this by making connections between civil rights for African Americans and support for broader federal programs that would become the cornerstone of his policies. This speech is remembered most for articulating his commitment to pass the stalled civil rights bill to honor the slain president. However, it is also important to realize that LBJ used this national occasion to establish his own legitimacy as president by reshaping Kennedy’s New Frontier into something that could be identi¤ed more closely with the Johnson style of governing. He began his speech by inspiring 3 Southern Accents The Politics of Race and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 Susan Youngblood Ashmore Congress to envision itself as an active body that would go down in history as completing a session that did more for civil rights, that enacted a farreaching tax cut, and that “declared all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” Johnson used the attack on poverty as a means to understand the direction his administration would take. He did this by ¤rst linking poverty with racism: “Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope—some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both.” He then proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. . . . It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suf¤ce, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest Nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.”1 Johnson’s bold support for civil rights in the State of the Union address merged into his call to end poverty. Even though both of these ideas had been initiated by a different chief executive, the speed with which his administration brought legislation forward showed the nation that the president meant to move the country at a faster pace than Kennedy had. Two key components of Johnson’s Great Society—the Civil Rights Act and the Economic Opportunity Act—signaled the president’s intent to use the strength of the federal government in new ways. Johnson cut his political teeth during the New Deal, and as a result of his attempt to exceed Roosevelt’s legacy, LBJ’s programs altered the balance of power in the federal system in a manner FDR could not have imagined. In the South, the potential to undermine the old order of Jim Crow was lodged not only in the civil rights proposal but also within the antipoverty effort. The Civil Rights Act provided mandates that would change all federal legislation after its passage in July 1964. For example, when these new directives were combined with the provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act, the traditional relationship between the federal government and the states changed. In many cases the antipoverty legislation enabled administrators within the Of¤ce of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to deal directly with citizens independent of state and local elected of¤cials. The social and political dynamics between these of¤ceholders and newly enfranchised black people remained unsettled following the passage of civil rights legislation. Therefore, it was federal bureaucrats—like those in OEO—who were...

Share