8enotto, while it might seem a good idea to put the monuments in a museum or better yet as Hlafordlaes suggests to put them in a contextual museum, remember that one reason DeKalb has chosen what it has is that the removal of those statues from their public places has been outlawed by the State of Georgia.
I would also add, though, that as the De Kalb statement makes clear, the prominent public placement of the monuments was an important part of their function, not as monuments to the fallen soldiers of the war, but to postwar racism and the lame and shameful apologetics of those who sought to reduce the sting of defeat by injecting the appearance of heroism and holiness to their ongoing hatred. Simply to remove them to a museum, while it has its merits, removes some of the offense they cause, but does little to address their pernicious secondary purpose.
Confederate monuments have long been a conspicuous, intrusive presence in their public places, a painful reminder to the oppressed that their battle was never fully won. Perhaps it's appropriate that they, together with correction, remain conspicuous rather than being hidden away in a back room or courtyard.
It would be nice to think that the historical distance of the Civil War puts its monuments in the same category as those of the ancient Romans, but we see daily evidence that it is not so. The slaves are all dead now, and so are the children of the slaves, but not, perhaps, the grandchildren; and many of us have lived through years of legal segregation, extra-legal discrimination, and though it's become less fashionable, we live still with bigotry and its awful consequences. In simple terms, racism still kills. We can, perhaps, look at the statues of the ancients in the abstract and supply whatever context we desire, but not so the statues of our unending strife.