[wideawake]

He won former battles by forcing the enemy to fight on his terms, he won by guile and manueverability.

This is too vague a description.

He never won any previous battle by fighting on the enemies terms and frontally assaulting fortified positions. No, he got the Union to do that.

He won Chancellorsville by engaging the Union forces with an extremely bloody frontal assault on Hooker's fortified position, while Jackson flanked the Union position.

The object of war should never be to attempt to destroy an army in detail.

Let's hold that thought for a moment - leaving aside the fact that this is precisely the successful strategy that Grant pursued against Lee.

Did the British sacking Washington cause us to lose the War of 1812?

So you've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy and also that seizing territory is a bad strategy.

This leaves, as far as I can tell, a third option - destroying supply lines, something that Lee never cared much about (he preferred to use enemy supply lines if he could).

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"This is too vague a description."

If you would like specifics, okay. Fredricksburg is one. He fought them to a standstill and some say a moral victory at Antitiem. Both of these battles, he got the Union Army to fight on his ground.

"extremely bloody frontal assault on Hooker's fortified position, while Jackson flanked the Union position."

Thanks for making my point. What won Chancellorsville? It was the flanking manuever by Stonewall that eventually cost him his life. This was exactly what I was thinking about when I talked about winning by guile and deception.

"leaving aside the fact that this is precisely the successful strategy that Grant pursued against Lee."

You called me out for being vague then you come back with a vague answer. That's funny. However, there is truth to the fact that Grant pursued a very bloody and frontal strategy. However, his bloody strategy in the end was combined with the fact that the south ran out of supplies to fight with. Lee could not get re-supplied and was outmanuevered and surrounded.

"So you've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy and also that seizing territory is a bad strategy."

No, I've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy for winning a war. Wars are won by defeating the enemies will and or ability to fight. Defeating them politically or cutting off their ability to fight. Which goal would have achieved that more, you tell me? Defeating Meade's army or sacking Washington or Pittsburgh.