By Ruben Leyva

Throughout history, taking captives during wartime has been a common practice among many cultures. The Gila Apache, like other Native nations, often integrated captives into their families and communities. While some captives were enslaved, others were adopted, becoming fully Apache and helping to replenish the population lost to disease, warfare, and captivity. This practice was not one-sided; Spaniards and Mexicans also took Apaches captive, creating a complex cycle of forced assimilation and cultural survival. This tradition in the Southwest predated European contact and continued even after the U.S. occupied the region.

Apache captives at Pecos trade fairs, where the Coronado Expedition purchased captives from Native Nations in the 16th century, exemplify the existence of Native enslavement by Native nations before the Spanish entrada. Taking captives also occurred in the 17th through the 19th centuries. New Mexican traders profited from the Apache practice of taking captives from northern Mexico, which were then sold in New Mexico. Many “Mexican” captives were, in fact, from Indigenous communities such as the Yaqui, Mayo, and Rarámuri.

In a letter to the Secretary of the Interior on February 19, 1852, U.S. Boundary Commissioner John R. Bartlett acknowledged this reality, urging officials to distinguish between captives initially from New Mexico and those taken by Apaches from Mexico and sold into servitude in New Mexico. John C. Cremony, a U.S. translator at Boundary Commission meetings, later documented Apaches’ reactions to U.S. policies concerning captives in *Life Among the Apaches.* When Mexican captives sought refuge with the U.S., Apache leaders demanded their return, viewing them as rightful members of their families. The Commission refused, citing Article 11 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which required the U.S. to return Mexican captives to Mexico and prevent Apache incursions. This provision, however, was inconsistently enforced, often leaving captives in limbo between cultures. 

Before the U.S. invasion in 1846, Spanish and Mexican Christian missionaries and priests baptized both captive and peaceful Apaches. Christianity did not redefine Apache identity, nor did skin color, complicating Spanish efforts to reclassify their neighbors whom they considered primitive. Colonial records reveal numerous instances of Apaches receiving a Spanish education and being baptized into Catholicism, sometimes earning privileges within Spanish society but not necessarily status within Apache communities. Traditional Apaches expected Christianized Apaches to adopt a hybrid Apache-Christian spirituality. Being solely Christian was not ideal as far as the Apache were concerned.

The diversity of Apache skin tones further challenged the rigid racial categorizations imposed by colonial authorities. One such case involved the Apache leader Güero, who lived at the Janos Presidio in the late 18th century. His Spanish nickname, "fair-haired," suggests a lighter complexion, but there is no evidence he was of mixed ancestry. 

Apache marriages involving captives were often used as a political strategy to create alliances. In 1792, an Apache man in Arizpe, Sonora, petitioned Spanish officials for the hand of an enslaved Christian Apache maiden. The Spanish colonists who claimed ownership objected, and the young woman wept, but Spanish authorities approved the marriage, hoping to stabilize relations with local Apache groups. This event scandalized Spanish society, which viewed the non-Christian Apache as ungodly, but it demonstrated how Apaches maneuvered and were manipulated within colonial structures. 

Apache women also played crucial roles in shaping these interactions. María Soledad, identified as “Apachita (Apache girl)” rather than “Blanca,” was baptized in 1801 at the Guadalupe Mission in present-day Juarez. At one point, she was recorded as "Española" in a church marriage document with an Apache man, despite her Apache ancestry. As the daughter of an Apache who served as a military auxiliary at Janos Presidio, Soledad benefited from a Spanish education and was fluent in two languages. Her situation exemplifies how Apache individuals could find acceptance in both Spanish and Apache societies if bilingual. In 1850, Mexican authorities used her bilingual skills to send a message to the Apache. In 1858, she represented Cochise and other Apache leaders in negotiations with Mexicans at Fronteras, Sonora.

Apache speakers of Spanish and captives familiar with the Apachean language proved invaluable. This applied to many captives, including Costales, an Apache leader who originated from Mexico. Raised among the Apache after being captured as a child from a Mexican hacienda around 1825, Costales exemplified the complexities of captive assimilation. He became a respected Apache headman and a trusted translator for Indian Agent Michael Steck. In December 1856, Costales and another Apache named Ratón set out for Mesilla, New Mexico, on an official mission to recover stolen horses. Unfortunately, they never returned. Costales’s body was ultimately found in the water, his head marked by multiple wounds.

The suspect in the murders, Martín Corrales, had sought indiscriminate revenge on Costales and Ratón for his own brother’s captivity by Apache. He fled to Mexico, where U.S. officials were unable to extradite him. Costales’s death was a reminder of the fragile nature of peace between Apaches and settlers and the enduring scars of the captive trade. 

The story of Costales has been conflated with that of the Apache leader Victorio. Even among the most renowned Apache leaders, rumors of captive origins persist. Some Mexican sources claim that the great leader Victorio was not born Apache but was a captive taken from Hacienda del Carmen in Chihuahua. This theory, however, contradicts the oral history of Victorio’s family and serves to undermine but denigrate Indigenous leadership by suggesting that Apache resistance could not have been led so effectively by someone not born into the culture. A more likely scenario is that Costales, rather than Victorio, was the child taken from El Carmen. 

At that time, it was believed that captives were crucial for the survival of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Captivity and assimilation represented not only loss but also survival. Over centuries, Gila Apache families adapted to constantly changing conditions, navigating the colonial and national systems that aimed to erase their existence. The historical record is often inaccurate and influenced by colonial biases; however, Apache oral traditions provide a counterbalance of truth.

Despite displacement, forced assimilation, adaptation, and historical misrepresentation, Gila Apache descendants continue to assert their identity and sovereignty. Acknowledging these histories challenges the harmful stereotypes imposed by Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike on non-federally acknowledged nations. Understanding the complex legacy of captivity and borderland ethnic politics is essential to recognizing the resilience that defines Apache history and survival today.