In Gore Vidal's novel Burr, Thomas Jefferson is sometimes referred to as "Massa Tom" by some of his contemporaries who were not his admirers (most notably Alexander Hamilton). I don't know whether he truly was called this by anyone, but clearly the reference made is to his ownership of slaves. He apparently owned many.
The fact he was a slave owner is, presumably, the primary reason for the decision made by a committee of the New York City Council to remove his 7 foot tall Statue from New York's City Hall. New York City's local government must struggle along its way without its presence in the future.
If memory serves, I wrote a post on the fairly recent urge of some in our Great Republic to remove Statues of historical figures from the various locations in which they've been placed. It's something which seems to concern many who declaim for or against it, and is like so much else in these sad times a cause for outrage, real or pretended. It's something I think shouldn't be of much concern, though it may be in some circumstances.
The circumstances I think would make removal of a statue a cause of concern are very limited. I don't particularly care if statues of presidents or kings or others are raised or razed. Normally, they're not history or parts of history except in the most broad sense (they were raised or razed sometime). Sometimes they are a part of history, due primarily to their age and their place in historical events. A statue can be a work of art, in which case there's an argument it should be preserved. But I confess that generally it's difficult for me to maintain that statues should or should not be placed or removed. It may not be to my credit, but I'm generally indifferent to statues.
In many respects Jefferson was flawed. Among the Founding Fathers I personally prefer John Adams, who was less a hypocrite. But Adams had his faults as well. The institution of slavery was loathsome, and is in a sense a taint or curse on the nation still. I doubt this or any other statue of Jefferson is intended to be a monument to slavery, or to commemorate him as a slave owner. Statues don't fill me with revulsion normally, so the existence of this particular one doesn't cause me pain or concern. But it isn't clear to me that he, or anyone else for that matter, should have a statue made of him and displayed somewhere, nor is it clear to me that once a statue is made, it should not be unmade or removed.
The reasons for removing or destroying a statue are sometimes considered good or bad, however, even if the statue itself is neither. For example, ISIS or whatever it may now be called, and other religious zealots now and in the past, have destroyed statues (some of great antiquity) because they believe them prohibited an affront to God or to represent demons. There is no reasonable basis for that belief. A statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled at the end of the Iraq War. Nazi symbols and Nazi inspired statutes were destroyed at the end of the Second World War.
So, it's possible that the motivations for removal or erection of a statue may be subject to judgment. That would seem to me to be the only thing of significance in the fight over statues in which we seem to be engaged. What are the reasons for the removal of the statue in question? What are the reasons for maintaining the statue where it is now? What difference does it make if the statue is removed? It will make no difference at all to Jefferson's achievements. As to those, no statue is required. If those are what he's to be honored for, the statue is unnecessary, and its removal isn't a cause for outrage or anger.
