On September 7, 1909, readers of the New York Times awakened to a stunning front-page headline: "Peary Discovers the North Pole After Eight Trials in 23 Years." The North Pole was one of the last remaining laurels of earthly exploration, a prize for which countless explorers from many nations had suffered and died for 300 years. And here was the American explorer Robert E. Peary sending word from Indian Harbour, Labrador, that he had reached the pole in April 1909, one hundred years ago this month. The Times story alone would have been astounding. But it wasn't alone.
A week earlier, the New York Herald had printed its own front-page headline: "The North Pole is Discovered by Dr. Frederick A. Cook." Cook, an American explorer who had seemingly returned from the dead after more than a year in the Arctic, claimed to have reached the pole in April 1908—a full year before Peary.
Anyone who read the two headlines would know that the North Pole could be "discovered" only once. The question then was: Who had done it? In classrooms and textbooks, Peary was long anointed the discoverer of the North Pole—until 1988, when a re-examination of his records commissioned by the National Geographic Society, a major sponsor of his expeditions, concluded that Peary's evidence never proved his claim and suggested that he knew he might have fallen short. Cook's claim, meanwhile, has come to rest in a sort of polar twilight, neither proved nor disproved, although his descriptions of the Arctic region—made public before Peary's—were verified by later explorers. Today, on the centennial of Peary's claimed arrival, the bigger question isn't so much who as how: How did Peary's claim to the North Pole trump Cook's?
In 1909, the journalist Lincoln Steffens hailed the battle over Peary's and Cook's competing claims as the story of the century. "Whatever the truth is, the situation is as wonderful as the Pole," he wrote. "And whatever they found there, those explorers, they have left there a story as great as a continent."
They started out as friends and shipmates. Cook had graduated from New York University Medical School in 1890; just before he received his exam results, his wife and baby died in childbirth. Emotionally shattered, the 25-year-old doctor sought escape in articles and books on exploration, and the next year he read that Peary, a civil engineer with a U.S. Navy commission, was seeking volunteers, including a physician, for an expedition to Greenland. "It was as if a door to a prison cell had opened," Cook would later write. "I felt the first indomitable, commanding call of the Northland." After Cook joined Peary's 1891 Greenland expedition, Peary shattered his leg in a shipboard accident; Cook set Peary's two broken bones. Peary would credit the doctor's "unruffled patience and coolness in an emergency" in his book Northward Over the Great Ice.
For his part, Peary had come by his wanderlust after completing naval assignments overseeing pier construction in Key West, Florida, and surveying in Nicaragua for a proposed ship canal (later built in Panama) in the 1880s. Reading an account of a Swedish explorer's failed attempt to become the first person to cross the Greenland ice cap, Peary borrowed $500 from his mother, outfitted himself and bought passage on a ship that left Sydney, Nova Scotia, in May 1886. But his attempt to cross the cap, during a summer-long sledge trip, ended when uncertain ice conditions and dwindling supplies forced him back. Upon returning to a new Navy assignment in Washington, D.C., he wrote his mother, "My last trip brought my name before the world; my next will give me a standing in the world....I will be foremost in the highest circles in the capital, and make powerful friends with whom I can shape my future instead of letting it come as it will....Remember, mother, I must have fame."
Peary, born in 1856, was one of the last of the imperialistic explorers, chasing fame at any cost and caring for the local people's well-being only to the extent that it might affect their usefulness to him. (In Greenland in 1897, he ordered his men to open the graves of several natives who had died in an epidemic the previous year—then sold their remains to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City as anthropological specimens. He also brought back living natives—two men, a woman and three youngsters—and dropped them off for study at the museum; within a year four of them were dead from a strain of influenza to which they had no resistance.)
Cook, born in 1865, would join a new wave of explorers who took a keen interest in the indigenous peoples they came across. For years, in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, he learned their dialects and adopted their diet.
Differences between the two men began to surface after their first trip to Greenland. In 1893, Cook backed out of another Arctic journey because of a contract prohibiting any expedition member from publishing anything about the trip before Peary published his account of it. Cook wanted to publish the results of an ethnological study of Arctic natives, but Peary said it would set "a bad precedent." They went their separate ways—until 1901, when Peary was believed to be lost in the Arctic and his family and supporters turned to Cook for help. Cook sailed north on a rescue ship, found Peary and treated him for ailments ranging from scurvy to heart problems.
Additional Sources
"Did Peary Reach the Pole?" by Wally Herbert, National Geographic, September 1988.
The Big Nail: The Story of the Cook Peary Feud by Theon Wright, John Day, 1970



Comments
Thanks for the great article on Robert Perry, I understand that Captain Bob Bartlett sailed him toward the North Pole, could you email me any information on Captain Bob Bartlett? Thank you...Have a wonderful day, Bob Bartlett
Posted by Robert A> Bartlett on March 23,2009 | 12:04PM
I believe the Inuit, Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit Inuit, Alaska's Inupiat and Yup'ik people, and the Siberian Yupik people of Russia 'discovered' the North Pole, NOT the Europeans. They helped the Europeans on their paths, why just like the poor folks of the Himalayas guided the Mount Everest explorers to its peak. Let us give credit where credit is due, shall we?
Posted by Warburton on March 25,2009 | 05:34PM
The inuit people did not guide them to the pole, they were hired because they were skilled in survival and movement in the northern climates. The northern native people had no concept of what the pole was and never would have visited it if the crazy white men hadn't hired them to go there as there's no practical reason to go. If there's anyhing I've learned from the native side of my family it's that we're nothing if not practical. That said, they should be credited more strongly, but they have no more claim to discovery than cook. In reality it seems obvious that Cook did his best to learn from their habits and adapt to the environment.
Posted by TRH on March 26,2009 | 11:29AM
This is very interesting indeed. I want to note that there is no mention of Matthew Henson who was the man that lead Peary's team to the north pole after Peary was unable to lead because of physical challenges. Henson was also given a duplicate silver medal awarded to Peary before he passed. Let's give full credit where it is due like the comment above suggests.. Thank You!
Posted by Kevin Carter on March 27,2009 | 08:28AM
In response to the comment posted, concerning Capt. Robert A. Bartlett. His career in Arctic Exploration began with the Peary expeditions, and continued until his death in 1946. In his day, Captain "Bob" Bartlett his ship the Effie M. Morrissey were household names, in the same way that Jacques Coustea and the Calypso were in last half of the 20th centure. We are celebrating the life and achievements of Captain Bob this summer in Newfoundland and Labrador. Information is available at www.bartlett2009.com
or www.historicsites.ca.
Posted by Catherine Dempsey on March 31,2009 | 05:29AM
I enjoyed the cover of the French magazine highlighting the feud between Perry and Cook....especially the extremely rare North Pole penguins.
Posted by Nate on April 1,2009 | 08:16AM
HI there. I enjoyed your article about the North Pole discovery and dispute. I am a cartoonist, with a comic strip called HISTORY BLUFFS. I drew this cartoon, and it was published online today and I wanted to share it with you.
http://www.comicssherpa.com/site/feature?uc_comic=csiea
thank you
Corben Geis
Posted by Corben Geis on April 6,2009 | 05:21AM
Yes, where is Matthew Henson's name mentioned. Just like the history over the past 500 years, rewritten and slanted to fit a particular group's identification. We will never learn the truth if historian keeps changing and twisting history? This will not benefit mankind!
Posted by vhange on April 9,2009 | 01:36PM
Matthew Henson is mentioned on page 3.
Posted by someone on April 10,2009 | 08:46AM
check out http://www.forwardexpeditions.com/ for information on a *current* expedition to the North Pole: The Victorinox North Pole '09 expedition - the first American unsupported ski expedition to the North Pole.
Posted by Julie on April 10,2009 | 01:01PM
I think that peary is the real deal cook is a liar because he claimed he reached it there so many times
Posted by alex on April 13,2009 | 06:11AM
I think Alex should read the article; it was Peary who went eight times.
there is a new term as to what happened to Cook: Swift-boated.
Posted by Kathy Eisele on April 14,2009 | 12:05PM
i think that peary and cook put up good claims, but cook's was more believable.
Posted by Cori on April 14,2009 | 02:09PM
It's apparent that Peary's lifelong quest for fame prompted him to do everything in his power to discredit Cook and claim the pole for himself. His claim to have averaged nearly 30 miles a day in the final days of his trek - when 13 to 15 miles a day was the norm - shows the dishonesty at the core of his claims. As for as the Inuit discovering the pole it simply isn't so. The natives seldom ventured far onto the pack ice where game was scarce and the dangers of drowning were very real. Their support and aid was invaluable in reaching the pole but it is unlikely they would have made the attempt on their own. It's sad that the megalomania of one man (Peary) and his supporters usurped the rightful honor that should have been Cook's.
Posted by Bart on May 17,2009 | 06:59PM
As owners of Arctic Odysseys, a travel packager/operator specializing in the Arctic region, my wife Susan and I led small groups of six participants each to 90N every April from 1978 thru 1994, this via Twin-Otter aircraft on skis. Accordingly, it was with intense interest that we read Bruce Henderson’s clarification of the Cook/Peary controversy in the April SI.
Although we believed ourselves to be informed observers of the history of polar exploration, we did not buy the Peary claim, this for a number of reasons that seemed obvious even to us amateurs. Because the question of who was first was a dominant one with our clients, we made it our business to try to keep current with the pro-Peary lobby, but there were disturbing inconsistencies:
The first of these was a route map similar to the one on Page 61 showing Peary’s route as a straight line. The map that we had showed a number of position shots taken en route precisely along the 70th Meridian from Ward Hunt Island to the Geographic Pole. The disturbing element was the fact that, because of ice drift due to wind and currents, the probability of successive sun shots on successive dates all being in line on the same meridian was so remote as to not be plausible.
Second, according to calculations made by an astronomer who had played a significant role in the development of the Hubble Telescope who accompanied my wife on one trip, the shadows revealed in Peary’s published photographs taken coincidentally with the sun shots, were incorrect for the specific latitude(s), the day of the month and the hour of those days.
In view of the foregoing, we told our participants that the outstanding evidence did not support Peary’s claim, all the hype to the contrary not withstanding, and that someday evidence hopefully would be revealed that would support this contention; thanks to Bruce Henderson, that has happened.. Skip Voorhees
Posted by Skip Voorhees on June 18,2009 | 02:27PM
All research has pointed to Cook, he's got my vote and my name too.
Posted by W. D. Cook on June 30,2009 | 06:19PM
If the flags we are made to believe that Peary left there are clear evidence to support his claims then Cook should get away with his claims. The fact that his publication was made first does not provide credible evidence to his claims. Moreover, since it was Peary who commissioned the journey and made it known to the world and hired Cook as a doctor, credits must be given to Peary on that account.
Posted by Timothy Elikem Harvor on July 16,2009 | 07:08AM
Congratulations on a well-written, comprehensive and well-balanced account. I lecture on polar history and like people to to come up with their own conclusions, which can never be solid, once they know the full facts of both arguments (a wish that Cook expressed later in life). I think that you have done this very clearly and in an unbiased manner. It is an amazing story, and very sad how things turned out for both men.
Posted by Phil Wickens on September 16,2009 | 04:59AM
What about Harry Whitney who was supposed to have safeguarded the 3 trunks of Cook's expedition notes he left behind in Annoatok. Read an interesting description regarding this in a lot being offered by Bonhams Auctions in London on Oct. 9, 2009. ( lot 189 album of photographs of 1908 expedition ). Any efforts to recover the missing evidence ?
Posted by John Crisp on September 28,2009 | 05:09AM