Territory and the word “expansion”
The title suggests a history of both expansion and loss. The accurate picture is more specific. Apache nations used large areas of the Southwest and southern Plains for gathering, hunting, farming and travel, with ranges that grew or shifted over time as horses, trade and alliances changed. That use of land is sometimes described as expansion. The loss that followed, however, was not a matter of Apache groups declining; it came from outside claims and policies over a few decades in the nineteenth century.
Homelands before reservations
Apache peoples did not generally think of land in terms of surveyed boundaries and deeds. Each nation and local group had places it knew well and returned to by season: mountain slopes for gathering, valleys for planting, springs and rivers for water, and places with sacred or historical meaning. Boundaries existed but were understood through use and relationships with neighbors, and they could be flexible. The mountains, deserts and rivers of Apache homeland geography shaped where each group lived and traveled.
Treaty-making by the United States and Mexico in the 1840s and 1850s transferred claims to this land between those governments. Apache nations were not parties to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Gadsden Purchase, so the change of sovereignty took place without their participation, and often without their knowledge.
The shrinking of territory
From the 1850s onward, several processes reduced the land available to Apache people.
Settlement and mining. Ranches, farms and mining camps took up water and grazing land. The pressure of settler encroachment was strongest in river valleys and near springs, which were also among the most useful places for Apache families.
Military posts. Forts and army roads were built on or near Apache lands, and campaigns made many places unsafe to use.
Reservations. Starting in the 1860s and 1870s, the United States set aside specific areas for Apache nations and expected people to remain within them. The reservation system defined a small area as the place where Apache families would live, farm and receive rations. Several reservations were created, reduced, moved or closed within a few years. The Chiricahua reservation in southeastern Arizona, for instance, existed from 1872 to 1876. Parts of the San Carlos reservation were removed after mineral discoveries. Other groups faced removals described elsewhere as forced relocation, which separated them from places they knew.
A map of Apache lands in 1850 compared with a map of reservations in 1900 shows how drastic the change was, a process often summarized as the shrinking Apache territory of the late nineteenth century. The comparison is also a reminder that the reservations that survive today are smaller than the lands that were used before.
Allotment and further loss
Federal policy in the late 1800s encouraged dividing communal reservation land into individual parcels, a policy associated with the Dawes Act of 1887. Where it was applied, Dawes Act allotment often led to land passing out of Native hands once individual owners sold or lost parcels, and “surplus” lands were opened to non-Native buyers. Its effects on Apache reservations varied, and some were less affected than others. In Oklahoma, the land assigned to former Chiricahua prisoners in 1913 was held through individual allotments, one reason their land base differs from that of the Mescalero.
Other losses took place through changes in boundaries, grants to railroads and rights-of-way, and the transfer of land to national forests and other public uses. These details differ for each nation, and it is best to consult nation-specific sources for particulars.
Land claims, stated generally
In 1946 Congress created the Indian Claims Commission, to hear claims by Native nations that the United States had taken land without fair payment. Several Apache nations took part in proceedings of this kind. In general, the Commission awarded money, not the return of land, and many Native nations felt that payments were far from adequate to address what had been taken. Further disputes over land, water and resource rights have been taken to courts and Congress in later decades. In discussions of Apache land claims and Apache land rights, outcomes differ from nation to nation, and no single account applies to all.
This article does not give legal or financial information. Anyone seeking details on a particular claim should consult the relevant nation’s official sources.
Place continues to matter
Loss of title did not erase Apache connections to land. Many Apache nations maintain ties to mountains, springs and other places outside current reservation boundaries, and some of these places remain at the center of public debate today, as with disagreements over Oak Flat and Apache landscapes in Arizona. Protecting such sites is a continuing concern for communities. Stories, names and ceremonies tied to place remain strong, and they are part of the reason why land holds such weight in Apache history.
Visitors to Apache lands and historic sites should respect any rules posted by the nations that govern them.