This BB is predominately pro-Southern, and folk have to be reminded that that History's door swings both ways.
"In Sheridan's case, he was attempting to shorten the war by denying Lee the
supplies he needed for his army, while Lee was attempting to continue the
war by acquiring provisions and supplies from the enemy."
When Joe Johnston gathered up remnants of armies to fight Sherman in N.C., He found warehouses that held huge amounts of rations to help feed an army, but Lee prevented him from partaking of those rations, because they were slated to go to Lee's army. (How they were to get those rations up there is a question to be answered!) Those rations amounted to about enough food for 60.000+ man army for 4 Months. Lee made it clear "Old Joe" was to subsist off the country. Johnston went to Mallory (CSA Secretary of the Navy) about substance stores in the warehouses for the navy, but was told to go elsewhere for food, as those were slated for the CS Navy, which hardly existed anymore.
Johnston had to go and forage off the country. No wonder folk in N.C. complained about the Davis Government.
“How should history view these operations? Was one any worse than the other?"
Lee had to know they were in trouble if he was having to go up North to get (commandeer) food for his army. The South had food, but transporting it was the problem, their economy was already in a shambles, the RR system couldn't be maintained...Vicksburg was the real key here, not Gettysburg. But Lee thought wrongly that everyone out West would run to help out the Army of the Potomac, and relieve Vicksburg.
A wrong conclusion.
History should look at all sides of what went on. My slant is construed as being anti-Southern, but a wrong conclusion in my motives because folk on this BB are so quick to vent about the Yanks, Lincoln…
I remind them as I read about the WBTS that both sides made bad, careless, un-thought out decisions that would affect the Country and the world for a long time.
You asked a good question.