I don't give a crap about PC, but the role of Texas in the Civil War was about as significant as the Dominican Republic's was in WWII.
All Texas ever did in the Civil War was provide cannon fodder (untrained soldiers) for the South. Once the Union army cut off the Mississippi River and divided the South, Texas had little else to offer--that and a bit of cotton. The Texas secessionists ran off Governor Sam Houston because he refused to be a party to secession. Texas' main reasons for leaving the Union was "solidarity with its sister slave-holding States." So, yeah, having old Jeff Davis' statue there has more to do with slavery and honoring a determined slave-holder than the "states' rights" BS being offered above.
I might suggest a compromise: Leave the statue of Jeff Davis where it is and place one nearby of William Tecumseh Sherman, who was probably more responsible for the South's defeat than anybody else late in the war. Sherman never invaded Texas (there was no reason to go there, nothing was happening), but his invasion and burning of Atlanta, the rest of Georgia, and the Carolinas did more to deplete Lee's Army of Virginia than Grant's army managed to do with bullets.
Thousands upon thousands of rebel troops abandoned their armies to run home to to protect their womenfolk, families, and property from the marauding Sherman (too late, of course, as he marched unimpeded through the South with 60,000 experienced, give-no-quarter troops. One famous Confederate general described Sherman's army as the greatest collection of soldiers since the armies of Julius Caesar). Lee and Grant went at it for several years up north, gaining and losing ground like the armies of WWI. It was not until Sherman was coming up from North Carolina and threatening to surround him from the rear that Lee finally surrendered.
Yes, this stuff will be on your finals.