Let us get this straight: You are saying that Sherman did not kill livestock, destroy crops and other food supply in an effort to cause starvation. If that is not the cause you explain why he did it. Also Sherman executed Southern prisoner in revenge for the attacks by Southern guerrillas. Do you approve of that too? He also killed children unless you don’t consider cadets children. He also turned a blind eye to the actions of his raiding parties. We will never know how many Southern women were rape[d] because Sherman didn’t care.
Happy to straighten you out. Aside from the quibble that Sherman didn't kill anything (he preferred to stay well out of any danger). . . After burning Atlanta, Sherman's army of about 62,000 men, divided into two wings, spent some 36 days ranging from Atlanta to Savannah against slight opposition from Wheeler's cavalry and odd bits and pieces of rebel militia etc. numbering less than 13,000. Georgia is quite large and Sherman's men, on a 60-mile (at maximum moments) front, cut a large swathe through agriculture and property which nevertheless did not destroy agricultural capacity in the bulk of the state. The object was not "starvation" but demoralization; the sapping of the will of Georgia's civilians and soldiers (who, it was hoped, would fight less and desert more to help the old folks back home). The second object of Sherman's march was to prevent reinforcements being sent to Lee, improving Grant's chances of victory at Peterburg. That some civilians went very hungry is of course true; Sherman knew it would happen simply because his army was living off the land.
Now as to the Carolinas, no such scorched earth march was undertaken. (Pragmatically, there was not an abundance of crops there). Yes, there were burnings, notably Columbia SC which was bound to suffer as the very seat of traitorous rebellion - but remarkably few civilian casualties (less than the Irish murders of black men, women and children in the NY Draft Riots of 1863). Doubtless a small minority of the army committed crimes - don't they always?
Point 1. Sherman was in a total "enemy" territory. In Vietnam, the U.S. forces operated in "friendly" territory; that is, the civilian population was what the USA intended to protect. You are of course correct that the USA could have traveled through the country it was "protecting" and killed almost everyone, friend or foe; this is called ethnic cleansing and is not nice. Or legal. Or U.S. policy. Or orders that the U.S. army should obey.
Did Sherman execute prisoners? No, he was a long way away from that too. Kilpatrick and Wheeler (later Hampton joined in) got into a spat about Union bummers being killed and their bodies mutilated (their killing was not at issue; they were armed and dangerous). Many threats went back and forth, including between Hampton and Sherman. Eventually, a Union soldier was bludgeoned to death in South Carolina and the local commander had Confederate prisoners draw lots to see which one would be shot in retaliation - which he was. Meanwhile, Kilpatrick and Wheeler had exchanged some prisoners and the problem seemed to go away. Such affairs had no benefit or bearing upon Sherman's success. AFAIK.
Point 2 Are you suggesting that U.S. forces in Vietnam should have executed prisoners, thus achieving victory?
Sherman killed children? You refer to "cadets"; presumably young men attending military training colleges such as VMI in Lexington VA or West Point in NY. The latter showed up very well in the battle of New Market in 1864, defeating Sigel's Army of the Shenandoah. Prior to the March to the Sea, cadets formed a small part of the defenses of Atlanta, ordered into action by General Hood and more than willing to do so.
Point 3. Are you suggesting that in Vietnam, a special effort should have been made to kill teenagers and thus achieve the elusive victory?
We will never know how many women, if any, were raped by Union soldiers between November 1864 and March 1865.
Point 4. Are you suggesting the U.S. military policy in Vietnam (a friendly, client country) should have been to rape as many women as possible to achieve victory?
Your error is not one of condemnation of Sherman's campaign from Atlanta to Durham Station, NC but of suggesting that those methods were applicable to Vietnam, one hundred and more years later.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts