GDG- Foote
Chet Diestel
chetd1 at comcast.net
Sat Jan 26 13:45:37 CST 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Baniszewski" <jdbano2001 at yahoo.com>
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: GDG- Foote
> Esteemed GDG Member John Baniszewski Contributes in reply to another
> member:
john: Without appearing to dimwitted, if that's possible, wouldn't the
death rate from the war itself skew the averages for that generation?
Yes it would, but not by as much as you would think. Although the number
of deaths in the Civil War was horrific, statistically they represented
app. 2% of the population, so impact on life expectancy of the entire
country is watered down.
I could not find data for the US, but the following gives life
expectancy in Sweden in the 1860's, as well as today. The biggest factor in
the longer life expectancy of people today versus 1860 is infant mortality
rate.
As of age 0 50 65 1861-1870 Years
to live 43 19 10
Age at death 43 69 75 2006
Years to live 79 30 18
Age at death 79 80 83
I once asked someone in the Census Bureau what impact the Civil War had
on total US population - would it be much higher today had the war not
occurred. She answered not by much, because the number of deaths among
women is the most important factor.
John Baniszewski
Any study of the population growth in the nation must, of course, take in
the young men lost to battle or disease during the war, but that was
certainly offset even at the time in the North by the rate of immigration
which only continued to grow by leaps and bounds in the post-war years and
in all the decades leading up to World War I.
But that leads to another question: Was there the post-Civil War
equivalent of the post World War II Baby Boom as hundreds of thousands of
young men returned home to their wives or got married in the years right
after the war and started families?
With regards,
Chet
More information about the Gettysburg
mailing list