Mr. Upton, in this you are correct. History shows undeniably that the South was ravaged by the war, and that Southern cities targeted more than Northern cities. There's no debate about that. The flaw in the opinions being expressed in this forum is that Southerners were morally superior to Northerners; that men born north of the Mason-Dixon line had a "mean gene" that made them more cruel than those born south of the line.
In fact, the difference between the two was opportunity. Since the war was fought in the South, and war involves destruction (sometimes accidental, more often deliberate), it is a natural result that the South suffered more than the North. The South could not carry the war to the North in any significant way. Had they been able to, the North would have sustained a greater degree of destruction. Where the South did have the opportunity, they certainly had no moral qualms about targeting civilian assets, as for example in the deliberate and systematic destruction by Confederate raiders of civilian whaling vessels. Tore the guts out of the New England whaling industry, which never fully recovered after the war. It was a bold and splendid campaign designed to diminish the North's ability and desire to carry on the war, no less or more moral than Sherman's campaign, and not inconsistent with the goals of a so-called defense war.
And apparently no one here has taken the time to examine the National Archives collection of Union and Confederate provost marshal and court martial records. Those records detail the arrest and trial of officers and men from both sides who committed crimes against Southern civilians and property. Yep, Southerners were prosecuted for murder, rape and theft committed on their fellow Southerners. And of equal importance, Northern soldiers were too.
There is no moral high ground to which only one side can aspire. That fact should be faced and accepted.