No it didn't. Here's what the New York Times, writing a few days after the Gettysburg Campaign, said:
The amount of havoc committed by the rebels in the various towns through which they have passed in represented by the citizens to be immense. They took whatever they wanted, and when so disposed, offered in payment Confederate scrip. A boot and shoe dealer in Mechanicsburgh was completely cleaned out of his entire stock, and all he had to show for it was $4,000 in worthless rebel currency. At Carlisle the people were made to furnish rations to 1,500 men. As would be naturally supposed, it did not take long to reduce the supply of provisions in that place to a small quantity. All the horses, cattle, sheep and swine in a vast section of country have been led away or slaughtered. It is related that a Copperhead resident of Mechanicsburgh, who has heretofore been loud in his assertion that the rebels were chivalrous, and would never think of disturbing private property, was especially sought after by them, and his house and furniture damaged to a heavy extent. His neighbors have an idea that perhaps he has learned to distinguish the difference between his friends and foes. If the rebels have only served all Copperheads they have come across in the same manner, the loyal people will be grateful to them.
A few of those Pennsylvania farmers managed to recoup some of their loss, though. They sold their worthless confederate currency to the victorious US soldiers as souvenirs.
Wow. The New York Times! If the New York Times says it, it obviously is true. No one should ever disagree with the New York Times.
Did some Rebels steal, yes. Was it the policy of the P.A.C.S. Officers to condone that behavior? - NO. They didn't know the money was going to be worthless.
OTH, the policy of the Union army was scorched earth. Get the difference? The USA condoned the animalistic behavior, promoted the behavior. Even you can see that. Well maybe not that Lincoln curse is strong in you.