Sorry, Matthew. But...why did you reopen the thread?
There is more symbolism in criticism of Forrest and Sherman than there is in anything they did. That's why I pair them so often. They are like opposite sides of the same coin. We have a thread on Wade Hampton but I see no criticism of his owning hundreds of slaves on his family's several plantations. Or of his participation (maybe) in the Red Shirts. They, too, were a **** para-military group. If they had not intimidated the black voters in South Carolina, Hampton would not have been elected governor. Purchasing people as slaves doesn't seem any better than selling them as slaves, does it? He, like many others, repented of nothing as he, and they, believed they did nothing wrong.
The OP was about having enough contempt for Forrest, and my position is why. The answer is it's his position in Southern legend and culture - he's most respected for having defended Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee during the war, and for having been the most feared cavalryman next to Stuart. Outside the South, nobody knows who he is. He can be blamed for participating in the klan - which was indeed no better than any other racist bunch at any of its incarnations - and even though he disavowed them they stuck to his boots like dog doo. They claim him as their founder and so it goes. Curiously, Robert E Lee does not get this stigma although they claim him, too. So, we have a pure symbol in Lee and an impure symbol in Forrest.
As another poster said...it's complicated. Nothing about Forrest is simple, and nothing is ever settled.