One relationship, many policies
The word “tribe” in the title is a convenient shorthand, but the relationship described here is between the United States and a number of separate Apache nations, each with its own history. Federal policy was usually written for Native peoples in general, then applied unevenly at the local level. This article is a general outline, not legal advice, and it avoids current figures. For the present status, programs and rights of any nation, the nation’s own official website is the right source.
The Indian Office and the reservation era
The federal government’s dealings with Native nations began under the War Department, and in 1849 the Indian Office, later called the Bureau of Indian Affairs, moved to the Department of the Interior. In the Southwest the Army and Interior officials often worked at cross purposes, which affected Apache communities directly. Treaty-making with Native nations ended by act of Congress in 1871, so later arrangements with Apache groups were made by executive orders, agreements and laws.
Reservations became the main tool of policy. They were set up for Apache groups over the 1870s and later, sometimes by executive order, and boundaries changed over the years. Agents controlled rations, movement and much of daily life. The reservation system gave nations a land base that they still hold in part today, even though it was much smaller than the territory they had used.
Assimilation
From the 1880s to the 1920s, federal policy aimed to make Native people live like other Americans, a goal officials called assimilation. Its tools included the 1883 Code of Indian Offenses, which allowed agents to penalize certain ceremonies; schooling away from home, a policy whose Apache boarding school history is one of lasting harm; and efforts to divide communal reservation land into individual plots. The Dawes Act allotment of 1887 was the major land law of that kind. Its effects differed across Native nations and reservations, and the details for each Apache reservation should be checked in local sources.
Citizenship came in 1924, when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act. Citizenship did not end the special relationship with the federal government, and some states, including Arizona and New Mexico, kept Native residents from voting until court decisions in the late 1940s.
Reorganization and new ideas
By the late 1920s, the Meriam Report, a major study of conditions, criticized the assimilation policy and pointed to widespread poverty and poor health. The next stage was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which ended allotment and encouraged nations to adopt written constitutions and elected governments. Several Apache nations organized governments in the 1930s under this law or related arrangements, though it was debated within communities, and the new Apache tribal constitutions did not always match older forms of leadership.
Termination and relocation
In the 1940s and 1950s, policy shifted again. Congress set up the Indian Claims Commission in 1946 to hear claims for past wrongs, usually settled with money rather than land. In the 1950s, policy turned toward termination, which meant ending the federal relationship with certain nations, and toward relocation, which encouraged individuals to move to cities for jobs. Some Apache people took part in the Apache relocation programs, and results were mixed: some found opportunity, while others found hardship and isolation. Apache nations were affected unevenly, and the federal relationship with the major Apache nations continued.
Civil rights and self-determination
The 1960s and 1970s brought a change of direction. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applied certain protections to the actions of tribal governments. The Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (formally the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) allowed nations to contract to run programs previously managed by federal agencies, with their own staff and priorities. Related laws followed, including the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which addressed the removal of Native children from their families, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act the same year. Together, these laws opened a period in which nations took a larger role in health care, schooling, policing, resource management and economic development.
Federal responsibilities did not vanish. The government still holds a trust relationship with federally recognized nations, and disagreements over funding, land, water and the management of trust assets have continued. Federal recognition also matters: some Apache-descended groups, such as certain Lipan Apache communities, are not federally recognized, which affects the services and legal status they have.
Why the same policy had different effects
Policy came from Washington, but outcomes depended on local factors: land base, climate, resources, the agent in charge, relations with neighbors, and the choices of tribal leaders and members. A Mescalero family in the Sacramento Mountains, a Jicarilla family in northern New Mexico, a San Carlos family on the Gila, and a Plains Apache family in Oklahoma met federal policy in different forms. The Chiricahua held as prisoners of war until 1913 were in a unique legal position for a generation, a status separate from other reservation residents.
A caution on sources
Federal documents are valuable but record the government’s aims. Apache sources, including tribal histories, oral accounts and the work of Apache scholars, supply what the paperwork omits. This article is a summary only, and anyone with questions about rights, eligibility or legal status should consult the nation’s own offices and qualified professionals.