Ouch. I walked right into that one. This is what makes history so fascinating and is a reminder why you should click and read before commenting. From the link you shared:
The marks against Forrest are that he was a slave-trader prior to the war and an early leader in the Ku Klux Klan afterward. The first statement is a fact, the second statement is debated. But there are other facts about Forrest that remain largely unknown today. Would you believe that by the end of his life, Forrest was maligned by many, including the Federal government, for being too benevolent toward the blacks of the South?
In my book Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption (Pelican Publishing, 2010), I recount some radical changes that took place in Forrest after the war, culminating in his conversion to Christianity in 1875. After the war ended in 1865, Forrest worked with many former Union soldiers and employed former slaves in his various business ventures. At one point he was investigated by the Federal government's “Freedman's Bureau” to make sure he was complying with the law regarding his black employees. The only complaint the Bureau had of Forrest was that he paid the former slaves higher wages than the government thought they should receive and that Forrest allowed the former slaves to own guns. Forrest, it seems, was far more respectful of the black man's rights than the Federal government was. The Bureau's chief investigator of Forrest referred to the former general as “too liberal” toward his black employees. (Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption, pg. 117)