The Part of the Story Often Left Out
Popular accounts of the end of the Apache Wars focus on Geronimo’s surrender in 1886. But when the trains left Arizona that autumn, they carried far more than the small party that had been with him. They also carried families who had been living quietly near Fort Apache, men who had worked as Army scouts, and children and elders who had no part in any fighting. All were treated as prisoners of war.
This article explains who these people were and the reasoning the authorities used, as far as the records show. Details of the surrender and the later years are covered in other articles in this section.
A Small Group of Fighters, a Much Larger Population
By the time of Geronimo’s last period of resistance, the group under him and Naiche was small. The records describe it in the range of a few dozen people, including women and children, compared with a Chiricahua population of several hundred in total who had been placed on or near reservations in Arizona. The numbers vary by source, but the proportion is clear: only a minority of the Chiricahua had taken part in the final breakout.
Many others, including the Chihenne (Warm Springs) people who followed Loco, had settled near Fort Apache in the White Mountains region. Records and later accounts describe them as farming, living in family groups and following the rules set for them. They had a very different history from Geronimo’s party and were in a different place.
The Scouts
Perhaps the starkest part of the story is the fate of the Chiricahua scouts. Army scouts were enlisted men who tracked, guided and sometimes fought on the Army’s side. Some Chiricahua scouts had served in the very campaign against Geronimo. After his surrender, the scouts were disarmed and sent east along with everyone else, including men who had spent months helping the Army.
The scouts’ treatment was seen at the time and since as a betrayal, and it is a subject of its own on this site, under the heading of Chiricahua scouts imprisoned despite loyal service. Their situation shows how the mass removal ignored individual conduct. It also helps explain why trust between Apache communities and the Army suffered for generations. The wider story of Apache scout history shows that these men had enlisted for varied reasons, including pay, family security and the chance to protect their communities.
Why the Authorities Did It
The record points to a combination of reasons, and historians weigh them differently.
- Fear of renewed trouble. Officials worried that a breakout like Geronimo’s could happen again if the Chiricahua stayed in Arizona.
- Settler pressure. Many in Arizona and New Mexico wanted the Chiricahua gone, and local newspapers and politicians pushed this view.
- A wider removal mindset. The episode fits the era’s forced relocation of Native communities and its assimilation policy, which both treated peoples as problems to be moved or remade.
- Collective responsibility. The government treated the Chiricahua as one entity, though they belonged to several distinct bands, and held all of them accountable for the acts of a few.
- Disputes among officers. There was open disagreement in the Army about the terms of the surrender and what should follow, and officials in Washington had the final say.
None of these reasons rested on the conduct of the individuals who were removed. That is the central fact. The decision was made at a higher level than the commanders in the field, and the effect was to make no distinction between those who had fought and those who had not.
Legal Status
The prisoners were held as prisoners of war, a status that does not fit people who had committed no hostile act, and later critics, including some Army officers and visitors, pointed out the problem. Over the years there were questions about by what authority they were held, and there was no trial. The situation continued for 27 years, in large part because no official wanted to take responsibility for ending it or for allowing a return to Arizona.
What It Meant for Families
For individuals, the result was that people who had stayed on the right side of the rules lost their homes, farms and livestock, were moved across the country and saw their children sent away to school. Some who had believed they were safe because of their cooperation found out they were not. These facts help explain why the imprisonment is remembered by descendants as an injustice and not just as a military measure.
Careful Language
It is important not to flatten the story. The Chiricahua were several groups, and individuals made different choices during the 1880s. Some leaders and families had been in conflict with the United States and Mexico for years; others had worked to avoid it. Saying that the peaceful Chiricahua were imprisoned wrongly does not require ignoring the earlier violence on all sides, which was real and affected many communities, including Mexican and American civilians. The accurate picture is that the government answered with collective punishment instead of distinguishing among people.
Descendants in the Fort Sill Apache Tribe and the Mescalero Apache Tribe hold their own views of this history. This independent site does not speak for them, and readers should look to the nations’ official sources.