Lee never made any insanely remarkable battles?

Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Cold Harbor. You can throw in Second Bull Run, The Wilderness, and the Seven Days battle, which culminated at Malvern Hill.

The point is, every single victory Lee won, he won against a numerically superior opponent. The most closely matched Lee ever was with an opponent, if I remember correctly, was at Fredericksburg, and he was outnumbered by nearly 45,000. Even more significant, however, was the fact that the Union army had more than double the number of cannons, and had a steady stream of food, uniforms, munitions, and other supplies. Lee never had enough of any supplies, and yet he consistently defeated his counterpart in the Army of the Potomac.

Houston, I respect your knowledge of history for the most part, but you're off base here. Grant only defeated Lee because in 1864 and the spring of 1865, Grant could easily replace his lost troops and supplies. Lee could not, because the south had exhausted all of its resources. They simply didn't have the manpower or industry to continue the war. Take a look at the Overland Campaign, Grant's big push into Virginia in the spring of 1864. Grant started the campaign with 120,000 men, to Lee's 65,000. In four months of heavy fighting, Lee took 20-30 thousand casualties to Grant's 55 - 65 thousand. Grant was able to replace his men, but Lee was finished. He would spend the rest of the war defending Petersburg, before retreating across Virginia to Appomattox Courthouse. Grant didn't win because he was the better tactician, he won because he could afford to lose troops, and Lee couldn't. Lee won nearly every major engagement between the two, but his government couldn't give him the resources he needed to win the war.

As a serious student of the history of war, I think Lee has to go in the top five. The only tactician that was as adept at locating and exploiting his opponent's weaknesses was Hannibal. In fact, I think Lee and Hannibal are very similar. Both fighting a war against an enemy that had greater numbers, and better and more resources. They were both brilliant at utilizing terrain to create tactical advantages or neutralize disadvantages. They both eventually lost, not to a superior tactician, but to a superior force.