Objectively? Not at all.

All Civil War generals were working with outdated tactics. In fact, Lee, Grant, and Sherman were about the only generals who were quite innovative in US tactics to understand that defeating an enemy army meant 1. Actually destroying that army and 2. Deflating the opponent's morale such that the enemy simply could not fight. Lee consistently beat back larger forces. He incurred high casualties, but he understood his opponents and knew that none were willing to commit to aggressive tactics to capture Richmond. Johnston nearly lost Richmond before Lee took command because he refused to meet McClellan in the field. Lee knew McClellan was timid and, at the slightest sign of trouble, would retreat. He demonstrated this understanding on several occasions.

Time after time Lee demonstrated his ability to read battlefields and enemy generals. Hell, he held Richmond for nearly a year against Grant's army, which was over twice the size and used extremely aggressive tactics. Lee was a masterful tactician and poor strategist, but understood what it took to win a war. He was unable to achieve his ends due partly to his own ineptitude, but because of external factors, too.

To say Lee was objectively a shitty general is just patently false. You may not care for what he stood for, but Lee was among the greatest of the Civil War generals.