DOuble negative fallacy?

The monuments erected as an honor to white supremacy represent hatred. Monuments of people who took up arms against their country to perpetuate slavery represent values that are not American.

Response from a friend:
How then do the monuments to Christopher Columbus meet the criteria? Why such a narrow definition. So those committed acts of violence against another race are acceptable to honor as long as it was not white against black? Where do the monuments to Malcom X who promoted black supremacy fit? Promoting black supremacy is OK but promoting white supremacy is not? Is not promoting supremacy of any race or ethnic group over any other not wrong? If promotion of any race or ethnic group over any other is wrong, then any monuments to any one or any group, that advocated by any manner, that any race or ethnic group is superior to any other must come down.

Is the definition you provided not racist as it makes racist acts by non-whites acceptable?
====================================
He is saying that if I support an idea to be true then I must support the opposite idea to be consistent. Which is irrational.
What type of fallacy is this?

I would charge false equivalency, Malcom X was not promoting black supremacy but was advocating for black civil rights.

I believe this is referred to as Tu quoque (you too), an appeal to hypocrisy, which is a form of Ad Hominem, in that it assumes the the argument is invalid based on the character of the arguer.. and it seems it is also being employed here as a Red Herring to distract from the original argument.

Also appears to be a Strawman, putting words in your mouth, and misrepresenting your argument. Your original assertion does not necessarily exclude any of the "points" made in opposition to it.

"The monuments erected as an honor to white supremacy represent hatred."
There are no monuments to white supremacy in America sanctioned by the govt. Saying anti slavery is anti American is a no true Scotsman fallacy, if argued in a certain way, because there was a time when Americans used slaves.
Malcom X did at one time promote Black supremacy. To be consistent that type of monument would qualify as "supremacist".
I don't see them saying to support the opposite idea. If you support white supremacists (your opinion) being removed and not black then that's not the opposite that is merely hypocritical. So not irrational.

I'll stay out of the politics of this one and answer your specific question. You ask,

He is saying that if I support an idea to be true then I must support the opposite idea to be consistent. Which is irrational. What type of fallacy is this?

I am not sure this is what he is doing. But let's break down his argument...

If promotion of any race or ethnic group over any other is wrong, then any monuments to any one or any group, that advocated by any manner, that any race or ethnic group is superior to any other must come down

He is begging the question that monuments to anyone who did this wrong thing (promotion of a race over another) should come down. Again, perhaps you agree with that, perhaps most people do, and this is fine. But as far as his argument goes, this should be stated as:

P1: Monuments to any one or any group, that advocated by any manner, that any race or ethnic group is superior to any other must come down.
P2: Christopher Columbus and Malcom X both advocated for one race being superior to another.
C. Therefore, statues of Christopher Columbus and Malcom X must come down.

Now, you can argue against one of the premises (or both), but if you agree with both premises, you must accept the conclusion to be consistent.