Johnston is widely admired in the South. He is viewed as an able tactician that had an impossible task. I think most people are aware that his troops thought very highly of him also.
That brings up an interesting point. What is the general perception of Confederate generals in the south today:
Elite: Lee, Jackson, Forrest. Stuart, Longstreet
Very Good: Johnston, Johnson, Early, Gordon, A.P. Hill, Hood (at least as a divisional commander),
Good: Wheeler (probably inflated), Cleburne, Hardee, Polk, Pickett
Mediocre: Buckner, Beuregard, D.H. Hill, McLaws
Below Average: Cheatham, Breckenridge, Pemberton
Those are just some off-the-cuff estimates.
Alot of lost-cause types blamed Longstreet for Gettysburg for awhile, even though it was Lee's fault by his own admission.
Stuart, IMO, is the most overrated Confederate general. He was decent, but was helped immensely by the very poor state of Union Cavalry out east. He made a very serious blunder in the Gettysburg campaign. The tide turned once the Union got some real cavalry leaders out there.
The most underrated Confederate General, IMO, was Richard Taylor.
I also don't think Bragg was that bad. He somewhat unimaginative and needed to go, but he wasn't Fremont or Ben Butler bad.
I noted an emphasis on the Eastern and Tennesse valley fronts .. Price was awful and Van Dorn was worse ..they outnumbered the enemy but were defeated in kind ... Magruder was awful too but was quickly reassigned to Texas ...