The south carolina nullification crisis, under president andrew jackson

Yang Li December 15, 2006 Term Paper: Thesis Refutation Thesis: The South Carolina nullification crisis, under President Andrew Jackson, split the
Democratic Party in two.
Main Argument:
Datisi
All South Carolinians did not support the Protective Tariffs
Some members of the Democratic Party were South Carolinians
Some members of the Democratic Party did not support the Protective Tariffs

Mood and Figure: EIO-1

Opposition to TariffsSouth Carolinians
Democrats
Avoidance of Fallacies:
1. Undistributed Middle – Neither of the premises accounts for all members of the
middle term, which consequently fails to link the major and minor term.
The middle term in the argument is the ‘South Carolinians’. Since both premises accounts for the South Carolinians, then this fallacy is avoided does not apply.
2. Illicit treatment of the major term – The conclusion implicates all members of the
major term. However, the major premise does not account for them all.
The major term is the ‘did not support the Protective Tariffs’ while the major premise is the first statement. The conclusion does not imply that all members of the major term since it does not say that all those who did not support the Tariffs were members of the Democratic Party.
3. Illicit treatment of the minor term – The conclusion implicates all members of the
minor term. However, the minor premise does not account for them all.
The minor term is the ‘members of the Democratic Party’ while the minor premise is the second statement. The conclusion does not imply that all members of the Democratic Party did not support the Protective Tariffs and the second premise only fully accounts for those who did not.
4. Exclusive premises – Both premises are negative, meaning no link is established
between the major and minor terms.

Both premises are non-negative thereby providing a link.
5. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise – If either premise is negative, the
conclusion must also b negative or vice versa.
Both statements are affirmative and the conclusion is also affrimative. Thus, this fallacy is avoided.
6. Existential fallacy – If both premises are universal, i. e. ” All” or ” No” statements, then
the conclusion the conclusion cannot be existential; i. e. beginning with ” Some”.
Only the Major premise is universal. Thus, this fallacy does not apply.
Reference:
Ratcliffe, Donald. ” The Nullification Crisis, Southern Discontents, and the American
Political Process”, American Nineteenth Century History. Vol 1: 2 (2000) pp. 1-30