Andrew Jackson and his supporters referred to the congressional caucus as "King Caucus" because they believed it held too much power and influence over the selection of presidential candidates. Here are the reasons behind this label:
1. Lack of transparency: The congressional caucus was a closed-door meeting of party leaders where they would decide on the party's candidate for the presidency. Jackson and his supporters criticized this secretive process as undemocratic and believed it gave an unfair advantage to the political elite.
2. Limited participation: The caucus system restricted participation to a select group of party insiders, excluding the broader electorate. Jackson and his supporters argued that this prevented the voice of the people from being heard and allowed for the perpetuation of political dynasties and entrenched interests.
3. Concentration of power: The caucus had significant control over the nomination process, which Jackson's supporters viewed as too centralized and prone to corruption. They saw the caucus as an institution that allowed a small group of politicians to exercise undue influence and determine the outcome of elections.
4. Perception of monarchy: By referring to the caucus as "King Caucus," Jackson and his supporters were drawing a parallel between the concentration of power in the caucus and the absolute rule of a monarch. This label was intended to highlight their opposition to what they saw as an undemocratic and oppressive system.
In summary, Andrew Jackson and his supporters called the congressional caucus "King Caucus" because they believed it operated in an undemocratic manner, limited participation, concentrated power in the hands of a few, and resembled a monarchy. They saw the caucus as an obstacle to the broader participation of the people in the nomination process and a symbol of elite control in politics.