Exactly. Longstreet understood the power of the defense and the necessity to fight, so he's the most dangerous opponent for the USA. Jackson's a Sherman-analogue who's a bit more willing to mix it up with the enemy and about as good at actually doing it. Longstreet has more independent command, Grant's job is a lot harder. Longstreet, Lee, and Jackson are still around and the CSA *starts* with a greater penchant to attack, which is only going to benefit Grant. The elephant in the room, of course, is Gettysburg and whether or not the POD involves Jackson getting wounded at Chancellorsville. If he's wounded, survives, but is out of action during the Gettysburg campaign and with his return Lee starts acting recklessly and stupidly in 1864 thinking the Golden Trio can't lose *then* then the result's going to be even worse than Jackson, Lee, and Longstreet stomped in the summer of 1863.
Not sure Longstreet in independent command would go better than the OTL examples of it, but Longstreet as commander of 1st Corps is still better than Dick Anderson.
On Lee acting like a man with an incurable case of Victory Disease in 1864:
This might be a handy way to get something like what your Up with the Star suggests in terms of an ANV curbstomp, as well as the POD you picked.
Honestly I think the question ought to be "What would Lee really do differently with Jackson?"
The assumption that Lee reorganizes needs to be looked at more carefully if this is a serious question on what could have been, because the reason Lee gave for reorganizing still applies...on the other hand, the reason reorganization happened didn't.
So the question is: Does Lee regard the recent campaign (Chancellorsville) as a sign that even his right arm can't manage 30,000+ troops in this kind of terrain? Or does he see it as a sign that his right arm very much can?