While it may be true, and i don’t know that it is, that Confederate soldiers, acting independently or in small groups, committed crimes against civilians, it wasn’t a matter of sanctioned national policy, as it was in the Union army of terror.
Soakncider: “While it may be true, and i don’t know that it is, that Confederate soldiers, acting independently or in small groups, committed crimes against civilians, it wasn’t a matter of sanctioned national policy, as it was in the Union army of terror.”
The truth is there were relatively few massacres of civilians, certainly compared to other wars, but all such masacres as did happen were committed by Confederate troops.
There is more than one site which lists these, and I’ll post them for you when time permits.
As for Confederate policy regarding Confederate forces in Union areas, it was ALWAYS the same: 1) take what you need (i.e. food, horses, weapons) 2) return anything of military or economic value to the Confederacy 3) destroy what cannot be taken (i.e., bridges, railroads).
Yes, “payment” was sometimes offered, but more often not.
Confederate destruction of whole Union cities did not begin at Chambersburg, PA, and preceded Sherman ‘ s notorious March through Georgia.
Bottom line: Yes, Confederate forces did less damage in Union states & territories, but mostly because they had less opportunity, not fewer intentions.