I dunno. Monuments are things that generally reflect the values of those who erect them, values that may or may not stand the test of time. Some of the monuments genuinely represent history, others not so much. Many of the Civil War era monuments aren't monuments to history as much as they are monuments to an ideology. Monuments to battles, leaders and even the people who fought in them, those really are historical in nature. Monuments of the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, and the great southern generals like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jubal Early, even Nathan Bedford Forrest, these are important historical figures, and ripping down their monuments solely because they owned slaves or didn't fight for the freedom thereof is ridiculous.
But it depends. It depends on the monument. Nathan B Forrest, for example, was a bona fide military genius despite having no military training whatsoever. He was not only the finest cavalry commander that America ever produced, he was a brilliant tactician of mobile warfare and combined arms, rapidly moving strike forces of cavalry/mounted infantry, supported by batteries of horse artillery. A monument to him for those reasons is both well-deserved and historically important.
On the other hand, there is a rather famous monument to Forrest in downtown Memphis that straight-up honors him for inventing the KKK, and for his expertise in killing black folks. It was erected by KKK members as a blatant way to tell black folks, "The war may be over, but not for you." That's one monument that needs to come down. It's an in-your-face celebration of hard core racism.
So I think there are several Civil War monuments that can come down, but too many are coming down that don't need to be, and for the wrong reasons.
