I've studied a lot of history and my father is a sculptor. No one sets out to fund and/or make a large scale public sculpture of someone just because they're "part of history".
Billions of people have been part of history. We're all part of history right now! Wow! If we're interesting enough to someone, maybe we'll get a Wiki entry and someone can read about us.
Articles and books and Wiki entries are written about people of historical note. Statues are built to enshrine and lionize the people they represent. When they are put in a public space, what that statue represents is implicitly imposed in the public space. That's *the point*.
An Austrian artist created this painting of Hitler, called Der Bannerträger, in 1935. The mark on the face is a stab from an American soldier's bayonet who found it near the end of the war. Who would be surprised at that reaction? 
People aren't mad (AFAIK) that there's a Wiki entry about Edward Colston. They were mad (and continue to be mad) that he's lionized across Bristol in a variety of place names and monuments.
Monuments aren't historical markers. First and foremost, they're shrines.
Monuments aren't historical markers. First and foremost, they're shrines.
There's a silly thing people will say, "Don't judge historical figures by modern morality." I agree that it's a somewhat pointless academic exercise, but if we're not supposed to judge historical figures by modern morality, why are they enshrined in public space?
The implicit answer is, "Be inspired by their mythological virtue, ignore all of the bad stuff." There's not a statue of Winston Churchill near Westminster so people can feel *nothing* about him. The statue is there so you can remember his epic speeches and ignore his racism.
