How at moments of dramatic change and a shifting social context do political actors alter their public identities? Put differently, how do political figures respond when positions with which they have been closely identified are no longer morally and electorally defensible? Responses to identity challenge within institutional spheres require an expansion of the theory of accounts that examines shifts in cultural fields, demanding mechanisms to signal adherence to newly claimed values. The standard view of accounts examines interpersonal justifications outside of institutional pressures, downplaying social location. Applying a theory of accounts to political actors requires recognizing appeals to interest groups and access to resources. In the political arena the presentation of accounts carries reputational dangers. Presenting excuses, politicians deny agency, placing themselves at jeopardy for claims of incompetence. Justifications require a credulous audience that overlooks possible insincerity. As a result, other strategies are necessary. Political actors rely on apologies or redress to demonstrate a revised self to stakeholders, depending on position, resources, and audience. To examine the realignment of reputation in unsettled times, I examine the post-segregation careers of Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Both moved from being icons of segregation to (claimed) devotees of racial equality, but because of their political location they moved in different ways. Given their context, Wallace apologized, while Thurmond provided redress to offended communities.