How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US?

This movement might threaten all historical statues.

Question: How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US?
Position‹5 of 5: We should remove some statues, but this movement has gone too far.
Argument: This movement might threaten all historical statues.

If we begin removing the monuments of all controversial figures, we will be forced to remove statues entirely, because every historical person is controversial in some way.

The argument

The statue removal movement started as a positive cause. It questioned the presence of statues that honor racism and white supremacy in our public spaces. However, it has gone too far, because activists are now calling for the removal of all statues that depict individuals with any sort of problematic ties. As a result, the statues of all historical figures will soon be in danger, because there is no completely blameless historical figure. Like us, they were fallible human beings who were guilty of wrongdoing. For example, a statue of George Washington was recently toppled in Portland, Oregon. If a statue of America's first president is in danger because of Washington's mistakes, it is likely that all historical monuments will face the same fate. In order to prevent this, this movement's supporters must do a better job of distinguishing between statues that honor racist ideologies, and those that honor individuals who made positive contributions to society but happened to make mistakes. There is a big difference between statues that honor treasonous Confederate generals and those that honor our nation's founders.

Premises

[P1]The statue removal movement began as a positive cause questioning monuments that honour racism and white supremacy. [P2] But it has gone too far, now targeting any figure with problematic ties, as when a George Washington statue was toppled in Portland. [P3] Since no historical figure is blameless, this threatens all statues unless supporters distinguish those honouring racist ideologies from those honouring flawed people who made positive contributions. [C] Therefore, because the movement might threaten all historical statues, we should remove some but recognize it has gone too far.

Counter-arguments

This argument wrongly assumes that the most extreme opinions on statue removal represent those of most activists. If protestors were calling for the removal of every imperfect figure's statue, they would all be removed. However, the majority are not calling for such dramatic action. They understand the situation's nuance and are only calling for the removal of statues that blatantly support racism.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Every position on this question accepts this premise, so it does nothing to distinguish the argument's stance from the one calling for removal. [Rejecting P2] A single toppled statue is offered as evidence of what the movement wants. The counter-argument disputes exactly this inference: the most extreme actions are not a measure of what most participants are asking for. [Rejecting P3] "No historical figure is blameless" proves too much — if it entailed that all statues were at risk, it would apply to every debate about commemoration in any period. The distinction the argument calls for, between honouring an ideology and honouring a flawed person, is one the counter-argument says is already being drawn.