I think prior generations survived terrible losses because they had no other choice - it was one foot in front of the other. Its not a matter of being more accepting of death or less affected by it, although they certainly would have had their heads around the notion that death at any age was a real possibility. Today, in the west, we're shocked and affronted when anyone under the age of 75 dies.
I look at my family tree, and the number of children's deaths is so startling to modern sensibilities - and multiple deaths within the same family within short time frames common, due to outbreaks of illness - I have several examples where two or three children died within a few weeks. I also have many ancestors who had multiple marriages due to the deaths of their spouses. New world colonists in particular remarried fairly quickly because they NEEDED a new spouse for economic and domestic survival - and doubtless they couldn't afford to be too picky among the limited candidates available within geographic range. I do think they had more practical expectations about what marriage involved, and likely did not expect their spouse to be their soul mate, best friend and favourite leisure companion.
I have no doubt that parents loved their children every bit as much 200 years ago as we do today, and just as destroyed by their loss - but they had less time to indulge in emotional collapse. After all, if you have a half dozen other children and a home and farm to keep going (with no labour saving devices and little in the way of store bought clothing or food etc.)....you'd have to get up and get on with it, or everyone's survival would be at stake.
No wonder so many clung to their religious faith for comfort and hope of a better world beyond this one.
Mary