One of my history professors in college (Hampden-Sydney, a fine conservative college in Virginia) wrote a book where he makes the case that Lee made a huge error trying to invade the north. Had he simply defended the south and not lost (as Washington did in the Revolution), the Union would have eventually gotten tired of the cost (in terms of money and lives) and offered a cease fire. Lee felt that a victory in the north was necessary to gain the recognition of France and England; however, historical sources indicate that he was about to get it anyway, but Gettysburg ended any chance.
My take on that has always been that he did it because his army was just about done from the years of defense. He saw that he was running out of men, and the invasion was the last gasp effort for victory.
Maybe. But if the South didn't get external help, I don't see how we could've held out against the North's far superior industrial and manpower edge, even with one of the all-time masters of defensive warfare (Lee) running things.
Lee was a fine military man and commander, no doubt about that. But I actually respect him much more as a man than a soldier, if that makes any sense. I suppose you can't really disentangle the two, though.
}:-)4