The north wants to wrap itself in the cloak of moral superiority. I wonder if the war would have turned out differently if Lee had been willing to make aggressive war on an undefended civilian population and leave a trail of pillage, starvation and smoldering wreckage in his wake as did Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant (among others)? These actions we would condemn today as war crimes. So you have to ask yourself - did the civilized side win?
Grant understood that the agriculture of the South kept the Confederates in the field. He wanted to destroy the South's ability to wage war.
It was harsh...but he believed it necessary to end the war as quickly as possible and save lives ultimately.
It was a strategy that Lincoln endorsed, and Lincoln made the right choice. It was the same type of decision that we made in World War II... Total war against Germany and Japan's ability to wage war. If Grant and Sherman are to be held as criminals, then so should the generals who made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan.
Jackson had the same attitude. He said that war was the sum of evil, but if we (the South) were going to wage war, then the South needed to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. Raise the black-flag. If you read some of the correspondence that Jackson wrote to Lee about going North, you would see the same attitude. Where Jackson and Sherman differed is there was nothing in Jackson's attitude or actions to suggest he would allow his soldiers to burn down homes or steal their wealth. He was strict on looters and wouldn't even allow the destruction of fence rails for fire wood.