That would be in line with his fixing it for moving picture people to act scenes on a battleship’s deck—­which he permitted.  He saw no reason why that was not proper, and the kind of people who admire him most are those who, likewise, see no reason why it was not proper.  The great lack in his nature is that of personal dignity—­or even the dignity which should be his because of his position.  If you are sitting beside him and he is amiably disposed toward you, he may throw his arm over your shoulder, or massage your knee while talking with you.

“But if some friend of his were to go to him and convince him that he lacked dignity, he is the kind of man who, in my judgment, would become so much the worse.  That is, if he attempted to attain dignity he would not achieve it, but would merely grow arbitrary.  That, to my mind, shows his great ineradicable weakness, for it not only reveals him as a man too little for his job, but prevents his comprehending the basic thing upon which naval discipline is founded.  Nevertheless, as a man you like him.  It is as Secretary of the Navy, and particularly as a War Secretary, that you very definitely don’t.”

Some time after our visit to Raleigh my companion and I heard Secretary Daniels speak in Charleston.  He told a funny story and talked generalities about the navy.  That was before the United States entered the War.  I do not know what he meant the speech for, but what it actually was, was a speech against preparedness.  So was the speech made on the same occasion by Lemuel P. Padgett, chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs.  It was a disingenuous speech, a speech to lull the country into confidence, a speech which, alone, should have been sufficient to prove Mr. Padgett’s unfitness to serve on that committee.  Mr. Daniels argued that “Germany’s preparedness had not kept Germany out of war”; that seemed enough, but there was one thing he said which utterly dumbfounded me.  It was this: 

“The Southern statesman who serves his section best, serves the country best.”

Let the reader reflect for a moment upon such an utterance.  Carried a little farther what would it mean?  Would it not be equally logical to say that the man who serves himself best serves the country best?  It is the theory of narrow sectionalism, and by implication, at least, the theory of individualism as well.  And sectionalism and individualism are two of the great curses of the United States.

Compare with Mr. Daniels’ words those of John Hay who, veiling fine patriotism beneath a web of delicate humor, said: 

“In my bewilderment of origin and experience I can only put on an aspect of deep humility in any gathering of favorite sons, and confess that I am nothing but an American.”

Or again, compare with them the famous words of Patrick Henry: 

“I am not a Virginian, but an American.”

Clearly, one point of view or the other is wrong.  Perhaps Mr. Daniels has more light on sectional questions than had Patrick Henry or John Hay.  At all events, the Charleston audience applauded.