Lee is admired by many (excluding our resident FReeper South-bashing contingent whom I'm sure will be here any second). He is admired primarily because he won a number of battles tactically on the field and a fair number of other strategic victories against a more powerful and well equipped foe. And he inspired his men. And he conducted himself with dignity in defeat. He was hardly flawless and I confess to belonging to the "he should have listened to Longstreet crowd". Actually, he should have taken the high ground at the first opportunity(including the evening of the first day's skirmishes even before all his forces arrived) and had Stuart reeled in for more prompt recon. My son and son to be are both great(X3) nephews of Gen. William Barksdale of my homestate who was killed on the low ground as you are all well aware. (Barksdale's sister Virginia was my wife's great great grandmother) Lee won most of his victories by choosing his own ground and choosing it well. That is a fairly consistent mark of all successful military leaders.
I have respect for Grant as well but from a different perspective of tactics. Grant was very very determined...something that separated him from all his predecessors. I am a big fan of Stonewall Jackson but Lee had some pretty fair generals in his stead. I'm not sure I would blame most of the Gettysburg defeat on Jackson's death. One could argue that the entire Gettysburg campaign was misguided. One could argue all of these tactics forever, in fact some do.
I'm not sure I would blame most of the Gettysburg defeat on Jackson's death. I suppose the argument is that, if Jackson had been alive, his corps would have solved Lee's problem by getting a good foothold on Cemetery Ridge on the First Day, rather than lollygagging around as Ewell is said to have done.
Keeping that foothold against nine Union corps would have been another matter!