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.
Well, lets see. You said that Lee devised a plan of battle for the Seven Days that was "horribly executed". You also said that Lee's "failed invasion" of Pennsylvania was a "disaster for the Confederacy".
I'd say we're in total agreement. Lee was a great strategic planner, but he sucked as a tactical commander.
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.
If Lee wished to blame subordinates for his own shortcomings, so be it. Others however, would point out that Lee's inability to adjust his battle plans accordingly was one of his biggest flaws as a tactical commander.
Cheers.