Mob violence targeting monuments is difficult to stop

What do George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, Father Junipero Serra and Christopher Columbus have in common?

None were Confederate generals, and yet all have had their statues torn down by mobs in the last few days — or, in the case of Roosevelt, had New York’s Museum of Natural History announce that a Roosevelt statue at the museum’s entrance will soon be removed.

The mobs ripped down statues in Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and several other cities without any fear of police interference. The police might as well have been defunded, for all they did to protect America’s historical monuments from vigilante violence.

Now add to the list Andrew Jackson, another president who was not a Confederate general. On Monday night, a mob attempted to tear down the Jackson statue in Lafayette Park in front of the White House. U.S. Park Police intervened, saving Jackson from crashing to earth.

Back in August 2017, during a period in which activists sought the removal of statues of Confederate leaders, President Donald Trump made the classic slippery slope argument. “So this week, it’s Robert E. Lee,” he said. “I notice that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

A lot of people said that was ridiculous. The slippery slope argument “fails because there are obviously relevant distinctions that can be made between Washington and Jefferson on the one hand and Confederate leaders on the other,” Ilya Somin wrote in

on Aug. 15, 2017. Try to tell that to today’s rope-wielding mobs, and they’ll just head to the next target.

It could be that tearing down some historical monuments on the basis of contemporary views inevitably leads to the targeting of other historical monuments, based on other contemporary views. It is hard to stop.

So what is next? Probably more violence. After all, what is the disincentive for new mob attacks on historical monuments? Certainly not law enforcement. Yes, some who supported the removal of Confederate statues are a bit embarrassed that the fire has spread to Washington, Jefferson and beyond, but they can’t do anything to stop it.

And some influential voices seem quite happy with things as they are. Consider this: Mob members sprayed graffiti all over the statue of George Washington brought down in Portland.

Among the graffiti was “1619.” That was a reference to

much-praised “1619 Project,” which sought to argue that the United States was not founded during the period from the Declaration of Independence to the ratification of the Constitution, but in 1619, with the arrival of the first Africans brought here to be sold as slaves.

The “aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding,” the paper said. The theme was that the United States, seen as a beacon of democracy, freedom and abundance, is in fact about racial injustice through and through.

So recently, noting the “1619” graffiti on the downed statue, the published an op-ed entitled “Call Them the 1619 Riots.” “America is burning,” author Charles Kesler said. “Looters have ravaged shops from coast to coast. And now they’re coming for the statues — not just of Confederate generals, but the republic’s Founders, including George Washington …”

That caught the attention of the Nikole HannahJones, creator of the “1619 Project.” Call them the 1619 riots? “It would be an honor,” she tweeted. “Thank you.”

Hannah-Jones and the Times won the Pulitzer Prize for the “1619 Project.” The project’s lessons are being turned into a school curriculum. Given today’s mood, more destruction surely lies ahead.