Grant and Sherman finally figured out that the North could win a war of attrition. So they set about a series of costly battles that they could afford but the South could not.
They also figured out that making systematic aggressive war against an undefended civilian population would work. Today they would be condemned as war criminals. Despite plenty of opportunities Lee and the rest of the Southern generals never did.
So you have to ask yourself. Did the civilized side win?
Ummmm. There were a few small-scale incidents like the Burning of Chambersburg (PA) in 1864. This was a subsidiary operation of Early's Raid on Washington. The Confederates ringed Chambersburg with artillery & attempted to extort ransom on the town. When the town refused, it was shelled until it burned. I believe the Confederate calvary commander on the scene was named McCausland (sp?).
The point is that the South was capable of the same type of atrocities, but lacked the means by that stage in the war to exchange tit-for-tat. IOW's the North was no longer constrained by the possible reaction to things like Sherman's March to the Sea.
It's interesting to note that while Grant commanded army-sized units longer than Lee, Lee had more casualties during his time in command than did Grant. Yet Grant is often portrayed as the butcher.
Both men were out to win. Both did what it took to win. Anyone who thinks that Lee would not have done the same thing had he been in Grant's position is deluding themselves.