Question as above.
My US History teacher and textbook argue that the South has the superior military officership with Lee, among other people.
I imagine both the North and South knew their strengths and weaknesses, whether it be population, industry, or fighting a defensive war.
Did the South believe they had better military leadership, or is that something historical scholarship made fact?
One point I would caution you on is that after the Civil War, a kind of narrative emerged about the North winning primarily by brute force, allowing the South to view itself as a kind of moral victor, in the "We weren't really outfought" sense. This was often accompanied by a narrative about the nobilty of the Southern soldier, a claim that the war was about "State's Rights", and often a tendency to idealize the antebellum South. This narrative has been pretty well overturned in modern scholarship but it still holds a lot of popularity in public discourse. So I would be very careful of blanket claims about superior military leadership that aren't specific to a particular circumstance.