4 ms·
I don't think we should define a "child" in the 1800's by today's standards, 18+ year old. Life expectancy, they way they were raised and all...means that life
by onetimemanytime 8y ago
I don't think we should define a "child" in the 1800's by today's standards, 18+ year old. Life expectancy, they way they were raised and all...means that life starts much earlier if you want a chance to get married and have your children http://www.legacy.com/life-and-death/the-antebellum-era.html http://www.legacy.com/life-and-death/the-antebellum-era.html
- newest_user_ 8y agoAverage life expectancy is a notoriously bad measurement because it skews way down because of childhood deaths. For example, Roman life expectancy was only 21, but if you made it to age 5 it jumped to 42. Even then the laws at the time was 18 to enlist -- so they already viewed child soilders the same way we do now. The big difference is age verification was a lot harder because there was little in the way of a paper trail.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoif you are lucky and lived to 42, you're a child at 16? Please