What counts as a treaty
Many readers expect a single “Apache treaty.” In practice the written record of Apache treaties is a patchwork. A few formal treaties were signed in the 1850s; many agreements were verbal or local and never became law. After 1871 Congress stopped making treaties with Native nations, so later arrangements took the form of agreements, executive orders and statutes. That helps explain why some of the most remembered Apache negotiations, such as the 1872 meeting between General Oliver O. Howard and Cochise, were not treaties in the legal sense.
The word “Apache” again covers many groups. A treaty signed by representatives of one local group did not bind others, which was a central difficulty throughout this history.
The early agreements
After the United States took the Southwest in 1848, officials moved quickly to make agreements. A treaty signed at Santa Fe in 1852 with Apache representatives was meant to set the basis for peace, including recognition of US authority and protection of travelers and settlers in return for promises of protection and gifts. Further negotiations in New Mexico in the mid-1850s involved the Mescalero, Jicarilla and other groups. Several of these 1850s treaties were never ratified by the Senate, and no one could say clearly to Apache leaders whether the terms they accepted had force.
The lack of ratification matters more than it may seem. A leader who agreed to stop raiding or to settle near a post might wait for rations or land that the government had not authorized. When these did not arrive, it was easy for the people involved to conclude that the government had broken its word. It was also easy for the government to say that no valid agreement existed. Both views were understandable from where each side stood.
Negotiation at moments of crisis
Some meetings that began as negotiations ended in violence. In 1861 Cochise went to a meeting at Apache Pass and escaped an attempted arrest, an episode that deepened mistrust for years. In January 1863 Mangas Coloradas, who had gone to talk with Army officers, was taken into custody and died there. Whatever each officer intended, Apache people drew the lesson that a flag of truce offered little security. That memory affected later talks.
The Mescalero offer another example. After campaigns in 1862 and 1863, many Mescalero surrendered at Fort Stanton and were relocated to Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico, where conditions were poor. They left in 1865. The story of the Mescalero at Bosque Redondo shows the limits of surrender as a form of negotiation: it brought neither the security nor the support that had been implied.
Peace in the 1870s
The early 1870s saw a more serious federal effort at peace. The Peace Policy of the Grant administration sent representatives to meet Apache leaders. In 1872 Howard negotiated with Cochise, aided by Thomas Jeffords, and agreed on a reservation in the Chiricahua Mountains. Accounts say the arrangement rested largely on spoken understandings and on mutual trust between the principals. It lasted until Cochise’s death in 1874, and the reservation was closed in 1876. Many Chiricahua then lost the land they had been promised.
This is a recurring pattern: agreements that worked for a time because of particular individuals, then ended when personnel or policy changed. A new agent or a new policy in Washington could undo earlier arrangements without consulting Apache leaders.
The 1886 surrender
In March 1886 General George Crook met with Geronimo, Naiche and others in Cañon de los Embudos, near the border. The group accepted terms that included a limited period of imprisonment in the East. Officials in Washington objected to those terms, and some of the group left again before reaching Fort Bowie. General Nelson Miles later took command and, at Skeleton Canyon in September, accepted the surrender of Geronimo and Naiche.
What was promised at that time is a matter of dispute in the records. Geronimo’s later statements, as recorded, say he expected to be treated as a prisoner for a short time and then returned to Arizona. In the end the whole Chiricahua community, including those who had never left the reservation, was exiled. Whatever the precise terms, the outcome was far from what the Apache negotiators had hoped. The Apache peacemaking history before 1886, including earlier efforts by leaders to arrange peace, is often overlooked because of this ending.
Why negotiation kept failing
Historians identify several causes, and none is complete without the others:
- Divided authority. The War Department and the Interior Department had different goals, and neither could promise what the other would honor.
- Ratification and funding. Agreements needed Senate or congressional action, and promised rations or lands often depended on appropriations that did not arrive.
- Local autonomy. Apache leaders spoke for their own families and local groups. A promise by one leader did not bind others, yet officials often treated it as if it did, and a raid by one group could trigger punishment of another.
- Language and interpretation. Interpreters were scarce, and terms could be understood differently by each side.
- Settler pressure. Territorial governments and local newspapers often demanded harsher measures than Washington intended, and Apache land loss kept advancing regardless of what was agreed.
- Turnover. Officers and agents changed frequently, and promises lapsed.
Looking back
It would be wrong to treat Apache leaders only as people who resisted. Many sought peace, repeatedly, and some negotiated a number of times over decades. The record is incomplete and mostly written by officials, so any account should be read with that in mind. Apache nations today maintain their own histories, and their official websites are the best place to find them.