Final answer:
If a Native American leader refused to move off their land historically, they would most likely be forcibly removed. Financial compensation was minimal and autonomy was rarely granted, leading to severe consequences for Indigenous communities, including the loss of land and cultural identity.
Step-by-step explanation:
Historically, if you were a Native American leader, and you refused to move off of your land, the most likely outcome would be that you would be forcibly removed. Several instances throughout history, particularly following the Indian Removal Act of 1830, demonstrate that Native Americans resisting displacement were often met with military action and forced relocation. Treaties that were put in place were repeatedly violated or created under duress, and Indigenous peoples found that even when legal or cooperative resistance was attempted, they faced severe consequences such as the loss of land, culture, and way of life. Furthermore, the promise of financial compensation was often minimal and controlled, leading to dependence on government aid that was not always reliable or fair.
Through various historical accounts, it becomes clear that autonomy was rarely if ever, granted to tribes that resisted removal. While some Indigenous communities managed to resist or were overlooked initially, they too eventually suffered similar fates, such as displacement and fragmentation, which had long-lasting effects on their societies. The U.S. government's approach to native resistance frequently involved enforcing treaties through military might, and those who attempted to defy such terms were seldom successful in maintaining their sovereignty over their ancestral lands.