George Wallace very publicly recanted his views in the late 70s. He apologized to the black community and met with civil rights leaders. He explicitly said he was wrong to try to block access at the schoolhouse. When he was reelected as governor for the fifth time in the early 80s he did nominate black people for state appointments and had two black members of his cabinet. His stand at the schoolhouse door was in 1964. His recanting came in 1979. So, that tells you something about the change that occurred in this country in the span of fifteen years.

It's all speculation but some people have questioned how committed Wallace ever was to segregation. Early in his career when he was a judge he could be relatively fair on matters regardless of the race of the parties. And was known to be respectful to black attorneys. In his first run for governor he was endorsed by the NAACP. His opponent was endorsed by the KKK. Wallace had also made statements against the KKK early on. Compared with men like Robert Byrd (who attempted to filibuster the '64 Civil Rights Act and was a member of the KKK in his youth). His opponent won.

After that he changed tactics and took on a more pro-segregetionist stance. And after changing tactics he won. This is something he himself acknowledged. He had a famous quote about how he used to talk about good schools and roads and all that but lost. But when he started talking about black people (not the word he used) they were stomping the floor (paraphrase). So, unsurprisingly, some suggest this was a blatant attempt to use race baiting to get votes. Remember that at the time there were laws on the books that effectively disenfranchised black voters. He needed the white vote.

While there is no question that he played that up to get votes, and admitted he was doing that even at the time, I have no authority to confirm or deny what was in his heart. I think using his judge record is tenuous. A person can believe everyone is equal before a court of law and still have deeply racist views in other areas. But there is definitely an argument made by some that this was mostly political theater on his part. Moralizing isn't part of the role of AskHistorians so we can leave it to others to debate whether that makes it better or worse.

Robert Byrd also repented his actions. He said both the filibuster and joining the KKK was a mistake. As for the sincerity of his apologies (realistically he couldn't possibly remain in the Democratic party after the late 70s without doing so) we do have a long record to examine. His record on issues impacting black people was considered in line with the NACCP. He got some criticism for voting against both black candidates for the Supreme Court. But with Clarence Thomas, at least, there is reason to think he was very disturbed by the Anita Hill situation. And he was one of the only Democrats to vote to censure Bill Clinton for his behavior. So, sexual harassment was an issue that bothered him across racial lines. He did endorse Barack Obama for President in 2008 even though Hillary Clinton had won West Virginia's primary. Not that that means anything (I can't be racist some of my best Presidential candidates are black!) and he did have an uncomfortable history with the Clintons. But if we are examining his record for the sincerity of his recanting then it's pertinent. He also had a consistently good score with the NAACP for voting for their positions.

I'm sorry to say I don't know much about Strom Thurmond.