If that was the case..then many Sherman haters have nothing to bray about...Sherman was responding to what had happened at Chambersburg...
Chambersburg was in response to Union General Hunter destroying much of the Shenandoah Valley. From Confederate General Early whose troops burned Chambersburg:
General Hunter in his recent raid to Lynchburg, caused wide-spread ruin wherever he passed. I followed him about sixty miles, and language would fail me to describe the terrible desolation which marked his path. Dwelling-houses and other buildings were almost universally burned; fences, implements of husbandry, and everything available for the sustenance of human life, so far as he could do so, were everywhere destroyed. We found many, very many, families of helpless women and children who had been suddenly turned out of doors, and their houses and contents condemned to the flames; and in some cases where they had rescued some extra clothing, the soldiers had torn the garments into narrow strips, and strewn them upon the ground for us to witness when we arrived in pursuit.
General Hunter has been much censured by the voice of humanity everywhere, and he richly deserves it all; yet he has caused scarcely one-tenth part of the devastation which has been committed immediately in sight of the headquarters of General Meade and General Grant, in Eastern Virginia.
Also from Confederate private Slingluff, acknowledged by a Chambersburg resident to be a reliable source, came the following description of Hunter's destructive record:
We had seen a thousand ruined homes in Clark, Jefferson, and Frederick counties,- barns and houses burned and private property destroyed
Here was General Early's rationale for burning Chambersburg as reported in the Philadelphia Age:
I was very reluctant, and it was a most disagreeable duty, to inflict such damage on these citizens; but I deemed it an imperative necessity to show the people of the Federal States that war has two sides. I hope and believe it has had, and will have a good effect. I saw with much pleasure, since then, an able article in the National Intelligencer, which called upon the north to consider gravely whether such a mode of warfare as they had inaugurated is likely to yield a success commensurate to its cost.
The Richmond Dispatch newspaper on August 4, 1864, mentions that the burning of Chambersburg was a good retaliation for city burnings by Federal troops. Somewhere in my old newspaper records I have an article on the time that says Chambersburg was basically the first -- there would have to be twenty more before Confederates caught up with the Federals in burning cities.
At a late hour last night we received Northern accounts of a rebel invasion of Pennsylvania, though the force engaged is somewhat a matter of conjecture. In burning Chambersburg, however, the Confederates have done a thorough piece of work. This carries the war home to the doors of the Yankees, and is a good retaliation for the burning of Jacksonville, Florida; Jackson, Mississippi, and other cities in the South.
To some extent, General Early's burning of Chambersburg was successful in getting Lincoln to think, at least temporarily, about stopping the burning of Southern cities, which had been ongoing for some time. Lincoln, no doubt, was concerned about the effect that burning a Northern town such as Chambersburg might have on the upcoming 1864 election. Here was his response to Grant following the Chambersburg burning:
WASHINGTON, D. C., August 14, 1864 - 1.50 p. m.
Lieutenant-General GRANT,
City Point, Va.:
The Secretary of War and I concur that you had better confer with General Lee and stipulate for a mutual discontinuance of house burning and other destruction of private property. The time and manner of conference and particulars of stipulation we leave, on our part, to your convenience and judgment.
A. LINCOLN.