The Premise Needs Correcting
The Indian Removal Act did not apply to the Apache peoples. Signed by President Andrew Jackson in May 1830, it authorized the president to negotiate exchanges of land with Native nations living east of the Mississippi River, in return for land in the West. In practice it was used chiefly against the large nations of the southeastern United States: the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek) and Seminole. Other nations in the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region were also pushed west under the same policy. The forced marches that followed, including the Cherokee removal of 1838 and 1839, are the events usually called the Trail of Tears.
Apache homelands in 1830 lay far to the west and southwest, in country then claimed by Spain’s successor, Mexico, and not yet part of the United States. The law could not have been applied to them, and no Apache nation was moved under it. The idea that Apache peoples took part in the Trail of Tears is a mistake, and it should not be repeated. The history of Apache removals is real, but it is a different history, with different dates and causes.
What the Act Did in the East
The act itself did not order removal by force. It gave the executive branch authority to negotiate treaties, and in many cases pressure, fraud and military force followed. Some nations signed treaties under disputed circumstances, and the Cherokee case is especially well known for the dispute over the legitimacy of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835. Thousands of people died during removals from disease, exposure and hardship. Many of these nations were resettled in what became Indian Territory, today part of Oklahoma. That is one reason the word Oklahoma appears in Apache history as well, but for separate reasons, discussed below.
Apache Peoples in the 1830s
In the 1830s, Apache groups were dealing with Mexican authorities, Mexican settlements and other Native nations, as described in the material on Apache conflict with the Mexicans and the earlier colonial period. Violence on the northern Mexican frontier was often tied to trade, captives and shifting policy, including bounties on Apache people offered by Mexican states. The United States gained control of much of Apache country only after the Mexican War, through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Federal policy toward Apache peoples took shape after that.
Removals Apache Peoples Did Face
Later in the nineteenth century, the United States used reservation policy to confine Apache groups, and several forced moves resulted. These are sometimes grouped as removal, but they were different in method and timing from the 1830 act.
- Bosque Redondo, 1860s. Mescalero Apache people were gathered at Fort Sumner in eastern New Mexico alongside Navajo people in the early 1860s, in a project marked by shortages and hardship. The Mescalero left the site in 1865 and later settled at what became their reservation. The material on the Mescalero at Bosque Redondo covers it in detail.
- Concentration in Arizona, 1870s. Federal officials moved several Western Apache and Yavapai groups to the San Carlos reservation, in a policy of concentration. The Rio Verde removal of 1875 forced many people on a long march in winter, and the policy mixed groups that had different homelands and sometimes tense relations. This is a subject covered separately under the Rio Verde removal.
- Chiricahua imprisonment, 1886 onward. After the surrender of Geronimo’s band in 1886, the Army sent the Chiricahua and Warm Springs people to Florida as prisoners of war, including many who had never fought, and including Apache scouts who had served the United States. They were held at Fort Marion and Fort Pickens in Florida, then Mount Vernon Barracks in Alabama, and from 1894 at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. They were released from prisoner status in 1913, and some moved to the Mescalero reservation while others stayed in Oklahoma. See the articles on the Chiricahua prisoners of war era for the full story.
None of these was done under the 1830 act. They rested on military orders, executive decisions, treaties and later laws about reservations. Historians use “removal” in a broader sense for such policies, which is why the word can cause confusion.
Why the Distinction Matters
Keeping the two histories apart is not a matter of pedantry. The word “Apache” sometimes gets attached to the Trail of Tears in books, websites and classroom material, which erases the actual experiences of both peoples. Southeastern nations suffered a specific policy at a specific time. Apache nations suffered a different set of events, many of them later and closer to the end of the century. Getting this right respects both.
There is a real link between them at the level of general policy. Both reflect a belief held by many officials that Native peoples should be moved aside to make room for settlers, and that the government could decide where they lived. The same belief lay behind the creation of the reservation system, forced relocation more broadly and later assimilation efforts.
Looking Ahead
Apache nations today hold homelands in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma, and their members live in many places. The effects of nineteenth century relocation are still part of family and community memory. For accounts told by the nations themselves, readers should look to their official websites and cultural offices. This site is independent and speaks for no Apache nation.