The Federal Writers’ Project employed both black and white employees, with more white writers than black. In New York City, with a staff of forty-five hundred people, one hundred and six were black. States such as Virginia and Florida, however, had a large concentration of black workers and quite a few states hired at least one black worker. The Office of Negro Affairs was created under the New Deal program and was lead by Sterling Brown, a Howard University English professor. Brown was concerned about the phrases that the interviewers used in their writings and that the expressions only be used in correlation with an interviewee actually saying them.3

    In 1937, The Federal Writers’ Project began interviewing two thousand of the known one hundred thousand, or two percent, of the ex-slave population in the United States. The racial dynamic between black interviewers and black interviewees created a better insight into the real structure of slavery; however, as comparatively few blacks were employed by the Project, the interviewers were often white. This created a very different narrative based on the racial dynamic.4

    Georgia, during the Great Depression, employed several white women and just one black man to conduct slave narrative interviews. The man, Edwin Driskell, was from Atlanta, and in the 1934 Atlanta City directory was listed as student. The higher education choices for African-Americans in Atlanta were numerous. They included Morehouse College, Spelman, Clark University, Atlanta University, and Morris Brown University. By 1938, Driskell was listed as caseworker for the Fulton County Board of Public Welfare, so he was quite young when he began working with the Federal Writers’ Project. He also fell into the ranks of an academic like other writers.5

    Driskell’s narratives provide a telling pattern of questions. Each narrative goes in almost the exact same order: parental lineage; information of the master and his wealth; what jobs were performed as a slave by the interviewee; clothing – when it was handed out and where it came from; food/meal details; housing structures; medical attention and did slaves on that particular plantation "fake sick" to avoid work; the issue of religion and going to church; the selling of slaves from the plantation; punishment and discipline measures; events during the Civil War; what happened after the Civil War; and finally, why have they lived so long?6

    Only rarely did Driskell use what was known as dialect in his interviews. When he did choose to write the narrative with dialect, it was most often an interview with a male ex-slave. More often than not, the narrative was written like the interviewee was telling a story rather than being asked questions in a specific order. One such interview that occurs in dialect is one with Benjamin Johnson. There does not seem to be a directed set of questions, but instead, Johnson is portrayed as telling non-specific stories from his past as they come to him. However, if one looks closely, there is a structure that emerges and it is Driskell’s tried and true interview style.7

    When going over Edwin Driskell’s interviews, one notices that there are little to none marks of editing. Any editing that has been done appears to be more grammatical than actually rearranging, deletion, and addition of phrases. Grammar changes include those such as "one-roomed" to "one-room" and "the feed" to "the food". The lack of editing can indicate many things. As Driskell was a student before being employed with the Federal Writers’ Project, he may have had a better grasp of grammar and punctuation than other writers. He may have also done rearranging to the narratives before they were typed or he may have added or deleted things that he felt would either supplement or detract from the interview. Driskell may have rearranged all his narratives so that they would all be in the same order or he may have asked his questions in the order in which he wrote. It is difficult to fully know. With the lack of large portions of editing by those above Driskell, it is possible to gather that the Georgia editors did not create false statements attributed to the ex-slave that were interviewed by Driskell, like the editors from Mississippi.8

    It is apparent from Driskell’s writing style that he showed respect and deference to the men and women he was interviewing. His question of living so long can appear to be flirty when he asks the women, even when he gets a straight answer, like Amanda McDaniels told him: "…because she has always taken care of herself, which is more than the young people of today are doing…" The question is one of well-wishes and respect of the wisdom of the ages. When Driskell attributed direct quotes with the information he obtained, he rarely used dialect, as mentioned before. This is quite possibly a signal to other writers that African-Americans are capable of speaking in more than just the stereotypical dialect attributed to them and that while not directly acknowledged, it is possible to ascertain that because Driskell was African-American himself, he was rewarded with this insight. Finally, he took the time to describe the interviewee with great detail, both in manner and in habits. Driskell always described them as dignified, stately, or regal with an air of hard-won freedom. His descriptions were not condescending and patronizing and it comes through in the writing.9

    Two of the most intriguing questions that Driskell asked were in regards to the Civil War and its affects. Driskell appeared to be very interesting in how the war affected the ex-slaves’ lives during the course of fighting and then after the war was over. Of course, this just goes to show the differences every ex-slaves’ situation, as the answers varied. These questions can be viewed as an example of the honesty that black interviewers provided in the course of the narratives. Having been felt that black interviewers often obtained better rapport with their interviewees, the answers given to Driskell may well show that link.10

    There have been criticisms directed at the study of the slave narratives from a historical perspective in regards to gleaning information about slavery. It has been posed by several scholars of the slave narratives that the influence of the interviewer was the single most important factor in determining how the narrative would turn out. As those employed by the Federal Writers’ Project were not skilled in interviewing people, per se, and they did not have any more than paper to record the memories of the ex-slaves, it has to be inferred in the reading what exactly the questions were. Examining Edwin Driskell’s narratives provided that answer very simply, as all his interviews were structured much the same way, even if they did not appear to be so. The crucial lack of information on the relationship between interviewer and interviewee is pressing. It is hard to tell how these stories were won from the memories of the ex-slaves and, as Hirsch stated, "there is little evidence that the interviewers were aware of their effect on the interviewees, of any bars to spontaneity, or of the desire to please". Edwin Driskell may well have been aware of his effect on his interviewees, however. His employment by the Federal Writers’ Project to record narratives may well have been a desperate relief during the Great Depression, or it may well have been a chosen path to get accurate and true stories of slavery. More than likely, Edwin Driskell had a natural ease with those that he interviewed, simply because he was African-American.11

    The slave narratives provide an interesting insight into the racial dynamics of the Great Depression. Written through the institution of the Federal Writers’ Project, the narratives are a cultural addition to the fabric of the nations tapestry that are important, no matter their limitations. Through them it can be understood slavery and the harsh conditions faced by African-Americans throughout their lives. It also illustrates the persisting racial dynamic between blacks and whites. The narrative written by a white interviewer will always be vastly different from an interviewer written by a black interviewer. The level of familiarity and the depth of the questions, as well as the honesty with which the narrative is written are reflected by skin tone.

    Edwin Driskell was a writer for the Federal Writers’ Project. The color of his skin helped conduct his interview just as much as the questions he chose to ask. This very important fact can be seen in the way he chose to write the narratives of the ex-slaves he interviewed and also in the answers he obtained. His youth and his education also helped him to create a different interview than one may have seen from a co-writer in the same state.

    In looking at the Great Depression and the New Deal programs instituted by Franklin Roosevelt’s government, it is easy to forget the underlying racial dynamic inherent in each project. The South provided multitudes of insight into the always ongoing struggle between black and white. The Slave Narratives written by the writers of the Federal Writers’ Project give structure and meaning to these struggles and also showcase the changes the nation has gone through.