Confederate Generals

The AoP didn't reinforce itself at its center, it reinforced itself at its flanks.  The center wasn't much weaker during the second day.

What the hell are you talking about?  After the second day, Meade reinforced the center.
Your sentence makes no sense.  If the AoP reinforced it's flanks, how is the center no weaker?

except that the attack didn't even come close to succeeding, the Union line may have been but that was merely Hancock pulling back his forward infantry so that he could use his artillery with greater effect.

Hindsight is 20/20.  Lee thought that Meade would have reinforced his flanks after the July 2 attacks; thus a thrust at the center would have made much more sense than a flank attack (that had already failed).  Lee simply made a miscalculation; one which WOULDN'T have been made had Longstreet done his job on Day 2.

Longstreet didn't care about taking Washington, the point was to threaten it and in so doing force the Union army to attack it in a strong defensive position.

So what if the Union DID attack it in a strong position?  The AoP would have still been very much intact and still posed a threat to Lee.

You're proposing that instead of Lee trying to win, he simply should have tried not to lose.  Which, after taking into consideration Lee's vastly inferior manpower and supply situation, would never have won the war for the Confederacy.

It's sort of ironic, a couple months earlier had listened to his subordinates, Meade Reynolds and Hancock, who were begging to counter attack following Jackson's attack on the Union flank at Chancellorsville Lee's army would have at the very least been driven from the field in disorder.  A few months later had Lee listened to Longstreet he might have gained the victory he wanted.  Well not exactly, it was no longer practical to expect a Cannae or an Austerlitz on account of the tactics of the day, terrain, slight improvements in technology as well as the heavy concentration of artillery in the Union army.  The fact that Lee didn't realize this even after Second Manassas when Longstreet's corp slammed into Pope's rear displays a surprising amount of obtuseness.

This paragraph is so incoherent that I'm not even going to try to refute it.

Wood served brilliantly during Operation Cobra, his thrusting attacks during the "Race across France" and his encirclement of Nancy were superb.

Way to just restate what you said before.

Yet a problem arose when corp command, of the corp Wood was a part, opened up in the third army for which Patton considered Wood only to choose an old West Point buddy Sprague Eddy, a decision he later regretted.  Eddy was notoriously conservative and had little knowledge of how to employ armor, under his command Wood became increasingly frustrated and was relieved.  I suspect that if John S Wood was given the opportunity he would have shown what he was capable, his protoge Creighton Abrams would eventually reform the US Army.

So because Patton chose another person over Wood and he performed badly, Wood is a good general?  That's ridiculous.

Of course Wood had very little experience and there is little to truly judge his abilities on...

So why is he one of the three greatest of all time?  You're not making any sense.

you placed Lee  as one of the three greatest generals ahead of a number of other generals who had far more illustrious careers and made significantly greater contributions to military tactics and strategy.  I'm sorry but Lee makes a poor comparison to the likes of Napoleon, Scipio Africanus, Subotai, Frederick the Great and a number of others.  So is it worse to place Wood ahead of Lee?

Lee is on my Top 3 list because he held out against, nay, decisively defeated an enemy that outnumbered, outgunned, and outsupplied him for 3 years, and only succumbed when the enemy was simply too large to have any hope of winning against.  He made his mistakes, but I'd challenge you to find one general in history who didn't.  He roamed Virginia at will for three years despite being often outnumbered two to one.  He was a tactical and strategical genious.
This is not to mention that he was a leader in peace as in war, signified by how he asked his men to pretty much forgive and forget even after sacrificing years of their lives, friends, family members, fortunes, and reputations to try to defeat the invaders.  He is the single best individual I have ever encountered on all my wonderings throughout World History, even after completely disregarding what he did militarily.  Any reputable study into Lee's personality will prove my point.

J.E.B. Stewart was a very capable cavalry commander, although directlt before and during the Battle of Gettysburg, he was galavanting around conducting guerilla warfare instead of doing what he should have been doing, keeping Lee informed of the AoP's position.

That is a common myth.  In reality, Stewart was cut off from Lee by sheer [accident.