In other words you are willing to continue to move the goalposts until you are satisfied that no condition can rehabilitate his reputation. That’s OK by me because it reflects upon you not me.
History does not consider Sherman a “war criminal” and those who shout it only look foolish to the rest of us.
"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."
This is not a war crime "because" it is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. It is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions "because" it is a war crime.
Of course, if one REALLY wants to look foolish to genuine historians, one need only employ "History" as a grammatical subject which "considers" an historical object.