Is it appropriate to refer to the period from the 1820s to the 1840s as the era of the common man? Why or why not? Provide several examples that support the common man's view and several examples that do not. Using the evidence you have provided, explain why you agree with one view or the other.

The common man improved his lot during this time, but things were far from ideal for him. The expansion into cheap western lands meant that prosperity was seemingly available for anyone who was willing to take the risk and travel into the unknown. Most states had done away with debtor's prison; before this, it was not uncommon for one to die in debtor's prison and leave one's family with a horrible reputation. Many states had also gotten rid of their property requirements for voters, thus opening the voting booth to nearly all white males over the age of 21. Politicians often catered to this growing electorate by appearing folksy. Andrew Jackson appeared like a rough Indian fighter from the frontier, and William Henry Harrison ran a campaign as a cider-drinking farmer from Ohio.
While the common man's lot did progress, life was not easy for him. The Panic of 1837 wiped out the savings of many, and many lost factory jobs and farms. Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison were not truly of the same class as poor voters, as they both owned prosperous farms and were quite wealthy. The common man who ventured west did so at his own risk, and thousands lost their lives due to disease, exposure, and Indian attack. Immigrants from Ireland and Germany experienced xenophobia in their communities and job searches and often had to take the lowest-paying jobs in order to survive. Slaves and Native Americans were still marginalized in the United States and treated with hostility. While the era of Jackson has been called a victory for the common man, many "common men" did not see their lives appreciably improve.