I respectfully disagree with you here, though your points are clear and logical. But I think there's a hidden level of meaning in public monuments that is inevitably felt but rarely observed consciously.

Removing a public monument doesn't erase history, any more than erecting a monument promotes historical knowledge / awareness. If all one knows about the achievements of Martin Luther King Jr. comes from one's viewing of an MLK statue, then one knows practically nothing about MLK. Same for Thomas Jefferson.

We erect monuments to MLK not to augment historical knowledge but to signal our support for the achievements of Dr. King. Monuments celebrating Confederate generals were erected for the same reason. When you drive past the carving of Confederate leaders on Stone Mountain Georgia, you are being bombarded with a message, and it's one-way. You may comment on the racism of such a memorial, but the mountain still broacasts its propaganda unimpeded, 24/7/365.

The history of Confederate memorials themselves isn't the history of the Confederacy; it's the history of the celebration of the Confederacy.

To counteract the messaging of the Thomas Jefferson memorials / names / etc., we would have to add a sign or placard explaining Jefferson's unillustrious opinions and actions, and that's not likely to happen.

The simple solution is to remove the overt memorials and teach the whole story of Jefferson--the good and the bad and the historical context. Such a lesson would not be helped by removing the memorials, but it would be hindered or at least contradicted by allowing the memorials to stand in the same place and same form in which they were created.