The setting
In 1881 the Western Apache were living under the reservation system in east-central Arizona Territory, with Fort Apache serving as the army post and agency center for the White Mountain country. The Cibecue Apache lived along Cibecue Creek, a valley north-west of the post. Nearby communities included people connected to the White Mountain Apache, and the army employed a company of Apache scouts at Fort Apache.
That summer, a Western Apache religious leader whose name appears in army records as Nock-ay-det-klinne, among several spellings, attracted a following in the Cibecue area. Army officers and the agent became concerned about the gatherings. This article describes the events at a general, public level only. The content of his teachings and any ceremonies is not something an outside writer should reconstruct, and army accounts of them, written by people who did not share the belief, are not reliable on the point.
The decision to arrest
Officials interpreted the movement as a possible threat. Reports at the time included worries that it might lead to unrest, and the agent and the military sought to act. Colonel Eugene A. Carr of the Sixth Cavalry was ordered to go to Cibecue to bring the leader to Fort Apache. He set out with a force of cavalry and a company of Apache scouts, and the column reached the Cibecue Creek valley at the end of August.
Historians note that the underlying situation was more complicated than the army’s account of a dangerous cult. Religious revitalization movements arose in several Native communities in these years, as people dealt with loss of land, restrictions and an uncertain future. Some scholars have compared this and later movements, but the Cibecue case should be understood in its own regional and cultural setting, and sources differ on what the leader taught and intended. Religious freedom for Native people was, at that time, not protected in practice, and religious practices were often viewed by officials with suspicion.
30 August 1881
On 30 August 1881 the column arrested the leader and began to move away. Accounts then diverge on details. The main outline, found in most sources, is that fighting broke out near the camp. During the fighting, some of the Apache scouts accompanying the army turned their weapons on the soldiers. The cavalry officer Captain Edmund Hentig was among the soldiers killed, and several enlisted men also died. The religious leader was killed as well. Numbers of dead among the Apache are not firmly established, and sources vary.
Why the scouts acted as they did is debated. Some accounts suggest that scouts had family or religious ties to those at the camp, and that loyalty to community overwhelmed their obligation to the army when events turned violent. Others suggest the shift was spontaneous in the confusion of the fight. Because the army’s accounts were written by officers who had survived and who were concerned to explain what went wrong, they should be read critically, and the scouts’ own motives are mostly known indirectly. It is important not to treat any single version as settled.
It is also important to remember that not all scouts took part. Some remained with the troops. The distinction matters, and it is one reason the label “mutiny” can mislead if it is applied to all scouts.
The aftermath
After the fight, Carr’s force withdrew to Fort Apache. In the days that followed, groups of Apache attacked in the vicinity of the post. Fort Apache itself was fired upon, though the post held. The following weeks saw tension in the area and reinforcements sent to Arizona.
Military justice followed. Several scouts were tried by court-martial. Three were hanged in 1882, and others were sentenced to imprisonment. Sources give the outcomes in somewhat different detail, and readers who need the particulars should consult specialist studies and the court records themselves.
Carr was criticized by some in the army, and his handling of the arrest remained a subject of argument. The incident also contributed to the sense among commanders that the Southwest was unstable, and later in 1881 and in 1882 the army increased its forces there. General George Crook returned to command in Arizona in 1882, and he continued to use scouts, but with changes to how they were organized and led.
What the incident shows about scouting
Cibecue Creek is often cited as the best-known case of scouts turning on the army, and it is indeed unusual. Across the decades, the great majority of scouts served as enlisted, and the Cibecue event stands out for that reason. But it is also a useful reminder that scout service did not erase other obligations. Men who enlisted had families, communities and beliefs, and they sometimes faced a direct clash between those and their military duties.
The incident also complicates the simple picture of scouts as either loyal or traitorous. In this case, men who served the army acted against it, and the army treated them as criminals, while many Apache people understood the events in terms of the defense of a religious leader and community. Cibecue shows the limits of any single label for scout service.
Memory and place
The Cibecue area remains an Apache homeland, and the events of 1881 are part of local and family memory. The Fort Apache historic site is a place where the period is interpreted, and the area lies within the reservation of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Anyone wishing to visit or learn more should consult the tribe’s official sources for current information, and should respect any restrictions on access and photography.
This site is independent and speaks for no tribe. Where Apache accounts and army accounts differ, the differences are part of the history.