Honestly? I'd be fine with Mt. Rushmore going.
I don't see much of a slippery slope here: people are most loudly and adamantly against statues and commemorations that glorify what they see as negative or even evil historical events. Mt. Rushmore fits that bill pretty well, given that it was built upon violently stolen land and serves as what amounts to a middle finger to the massacred and robbed Sioux people. More here:
https://apnews.com/50f6bdb9e2fd2349bb39b99c1250b093
Meanwhile, I don't see anyone asking for, let's say, historically preserved southern plantations to be torn down. Most would rather see them preserved, slave quarters and all, as a reminder of where this country came from, and the real forces that shaped it, including those that aren't always comfortable to confront. There's a pretty big distinction between that and a statue created years after an event with the purpose of "let's antagonize this particular group of traditionally marginalized people" in mind.