Sorry, I don’t buy it.
The Army of Northern Virginia spent at about two months in Union states. The Army of the Potomac spent almost four years continuously in CSA territory. The CSA simply had a lot less time and opportunity to oppress civilians.
When it comes to viciousness of border warfare in KS, MO, KY and WV, there is little to choose between the sides. Partisans of both sides behaved very badly, though to be fair the South achieved more spectacular atrocities.
I disagree that northern invasion and conquest of the South was simply retaliation for southern raids into the North. The invasion and conquest of the South wasn’t always pretty or polite, but it was necessary. I just don’t think we should try to pretty it up into just fighting back against the aggressors.
Sure, agreed, but remember the subject of this thread is how uniquely evil & monstrous was Uncle Billy Sherman in Georgia.
I'm only here to argue that there was nothing "unique" about it, that Sherman did nothing more on a larger scale than what Confederates had done on smaller scales for years before that.
So your reminders that "90%" of the fighting was done in the South, and therefore logically 90% of the atrocities committed by Union forces is simply not fair.
The truth is that there was a, let's call it Civil War "culture", which dictated what they considered right & proper for armies to do, and what wasn't.
That "culture" was constantly pushed towards "less civilized" throughout the war, and leaders in that direction were inevitably Confederates!
And if you ask why that was, the answer is: because they had no choice, they had to loot militarily valuable supplies or die, since the Confederate economy was just not robust enough to support a large military long-term.