Well I'll put one in Ulysses' column
Several times Grant made decisions which indicate to me that he had the capacity to understand the enemy as people. His humble backgrounds provided a means of empathizing with the common man and his priorities. With Vicksburg Grant issued a great number of pardons rather then try and ship Confederate soldiers North knowing the the great majority of them would return home - they'd had enough. He further understood that by keeping them at home there was a greater burden on the South vs. moving that burden to the North - such as tying up rail roads and other resources.
This did not inhibit Grant from ruthlessly engaging the enemy when that is what supported the military objective - he just had the foresight to understand how to employ both direct and indirect ways toward operational and strategic ends.
He also understood the long term requirements for political redress needed to integrate the South back into the Union. While there were some things that were unconditional and the South had to realize it was beaten, there must be the potential for a lasting peace. As such he avoided many things that could have made peace more difficult to live with.
Patton (and the rest of his USMA peers) did study the American Civil War and its leaders. He must've had an acute sense of why they took the actions they did. He may well have considered some of those lessons as they began to consider how the U.S. would help put Europe back together again.
I might add the when considering any wars - consider the political object of the war; when considering battles, the object is most often purely military - although it might have operational or strategic significance and as such, effect the political end.
Best regards, Rob