Defend until the North gave up--essentially the South believed they had more conviction than the North and that would win out.
The South had an idea to fight for and believed they could survive on their own. The South relied on their ports and did not have as many supplies as the North but they had something to fight for. The North lacked morale and a mission. It was also believed by some that the South had the right to leave and the North had no right to stop them through military action.
The best answer in that set would seem to be "compromise." I'm not sure I'd use exactly that term, but it's the best term from the set of answers given. Count Camillo di Cavour was prime minister of the Kingdom of Sardinia, serving under King Victor Emmanuel II. This was a time in history (in the 19th century) when prime ministers were starting to exercise more control of policy than the kings themselves. It was also a time of something that came to be known a "Realpolitik" (a German term), or "realistic politics." So I'd say Cavour was a political realist who chose paths of action that would benefit his overall aims, whether or not they fit some specific ideology or master plan. I suppose "compromise" would be another way of saying that, but I'd prefer to say he practiced political realism.
German
The term "Hessians" refers to the approximately 30,000 German troops hired by the British to help fight during the American Revolution. They were principally drawn from the German state of Hesse-Cassel, although soldiers from other German states also saw action in America.
This resulted in an increase in the transformation of
communities due to the influx of new immigrants many of whom were at an age
where they are about to establish their own independence and make their own
mark in their new home.
