Funny how the war was a close thing until the North began targeting Civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Look for the Russians to pursue the same strategy in Ukraine.
Just counting up battles & skirmishes to date, about 1/4 were fought in Virginia, and there Confederate victories outnumbered Union victories by four to one.
But in every other state, Union victories outnumber Confederates by more than two to one, on average.
So overall, so far, the numbers look almost even.
What has begun to change is the war's center of gravity, meaning that through 1862 there were as many engagements fought in Union States & territories as in Confederate States.
That has now begun to shift decidedly towards more battles fought in Confederate states, by nearly 30%.
As for which army did more damage to the other side, Confederate forces in Union states or territories like Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky and New Mexico, always "lived off the land" and confiscated "contraband", including African Americans for sale in Confederate slave markets.
Confederate raids into Pennsylvania and Ohio were largely for the purpose of gathering supplies and destroying Union bridges and rails.
Union forces in Confederate States also sometimes lived off the land, but it was more the exception than the rule.
So Union armies such as Grant's attacking Vicksburg, were very much tied to their supply lines, this explains why Grant was at such great pains to find or build a route to Vicksburg where his lines could not be disrupted.
The basic problem with the "Union Army destroyed the South" narrative is that it's not at all clear how much destruction there really was, or who, exactly, were the culprits.
Union atrocities, lost cause, blah blah blah.