Militarily no, but in the manner of conduction yes. Sherman willfully directed his army out of its way to extract unneccessary destruction on civilian populations. Why all the burnt cities and homes? Why all the looting and all the rapes? None was a necessary action and none was a legitimate military exercise.
Whine all you want about Lee in Maryland or Pennsyvania as well, but the facts are clear - nothing Lee did in either places compares anywhere near in scale to Sherman's actions, therefore the two situations are incomparable. While it is perfectly right to condemn the small number of southern incidents against civilians in the north, to use them for excusing Sherman as you do is intellectually fraudulent. Two wrongs simply do not make a right, especially when the party with the overwhelmingly greater guilt is trying to excuse himself on incomparable lesser acts of guilt by his opponent's side.