In other words Lee accomplished his strategic objectives during the Seven Days Battles even though he suffered a series of tactical defeats throughout, is that right Professore?
It appears we're in agreement about everything but the semantics. It has been largely held that Lee was the most capable field commander of the war. I would, then, place him in the category of a tactical commander, as he was planning defeat for his enemies on a battle-by-battle basis. My notion for a strategic commander is someone who, today, resides at the pentagon and maps the larger picture of the war, leaving the tactical detail of specific conquest to the field commander.
In the latter sense, Lee came up short; his failed invasin of Pennsylvania was a disaster for the Confederacy. On the other hand, Lee's failure in any given battle seems to be preceeded by some instance of gross incompetence among his subordinates sabotaging the overall battle plan.