A general-in-chief has no right to shelter his mistakes in war under
cover of his sovereign, or of a minister, when these are both distant
from the scene of operation, and must consequently be either ill
informed or wholly ignorant of the actual state of things.
Hence, it follows, that every general is culpable who undertakes the
execution of a plan which he considers faulty. It is his duty to
represent his reasons, to insist upon a change of plan, in short, to
give in his resignation, rather than allow himself to be made the
instrument of his army’s ruin. Every general-in-chief who fights a
battle in consequence of superior orders, with the certainty of losing
it, is equally blamable.
In this last-mentioned case, the general ought to refuse obedience;
because a blind obedience is due only to a military command given
by a superior present on the spot at the moment of action. Being in
possession of the real state of things, the superior has it then in his
power to afford the necessary explanations to the person who executes
his orders.
But supposing a general-in-chief to receive positive order from
his sovereign, directing him to fight a battle, with the further
injunction, to yield to his adversary, and allow himself to be
defeated--ought he to obey it? No. If the general should be able to
comprehend the meaning or utility of such an order, he should execute
it; otherwise he should refuse to obey it.