Chapter 1 – Orgins

There exist today throughout the world more than twelve hundred associations which owe their origin to a tendency in Scotchmen to unite for the promotion of some social, charitable, or other purpose.1  Of these a hundred or more bear the name and use the insignia of Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland.2 In his home country and in practically every land to which the Scott has emigrated – in Canada, where there are no less than thirty –seven; in the United States and her dependencies, which have thirty-one; in South and Central America; in Australia and New Zealand; and in the Far East (China, Siam, and the Federated Malay States) – one or more St. Andrew’s Societies are to be found. Though they have the same name and for the most part the same purpose; namely, charity, there is no formal affiliation among them.3 Intercourse is maintained in many instances, however, through correspondence, attendance of a member of one society upon a meeting of another, and a more or less general exchange of greetings on the annual festivals of St. Andrew’s Day.

The St. Andrew’s Society of Charleston, South Carolina, founded in the year 1729, is not only the oldest, but it is also the progenitor of some, possibly a great number, of these St. Andrew’s societies. That it is the oldest there is little reason to doubt, for all and none of the list of Scottish associations which have been published from time to time does there appear a St. Andrew’s Society with an earlier date of establishment.4  That it is the progenitor of at least twoother associations of the same name is equally certain.  According to the same authorities which assigned the Charleston society the place of the oldest, the St. Andrew’s Society of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the second oldest, having been founded in 1749.  This organization, beyond all doubt, was modeled with minor changes after the one in Charleston 5 – a result, probably, of the removal from Charleston to Philadelphia of a resident of the former city who carried the idea with him.6  Certain it is that by this means it was transmitted from Philadelphia to New York, where the St. Andrew’s Society of the State of New York was established in 1756.7  Could the original rules of all the societies be compared as those of these three have been8, it might prove that the origins of many, even of those of Scotland, are traceable to the one original Association.9  In the absence of this evidence the argument might be made that St. Andrew and the symbols which have been associated with him also generally esteemed in Scotland at the thought of naming and organization in his honor may well have occurred independently to numberless groups of Scotchmen.  A president of the Charleston society evidently intended to suggest this when he said, “… the name of St. Andrew and the symbol of his cross, the concentrated banner of their fathers, are still held in deep reverence by every Scotchman; and whenever at a distance from Scotland to unite for any social or benevolent purpose, and especially to cherish the recollection of their beloved native land, that name and symbol, and the thistle of his Order, and its daring motto, generally distinguish their voluntary associations.”10 No reasonable person will hold it against the members of the St. Andrew’s Society of Charleston for indulging themselves, as they probably approached their two hundredth anniversary, in the belief that this explanation is improbable. 

Whether it found among a single group of Scotchmen a first response which was then passed on to others, or whether it has produced similar but independent responses among many groups, the impulse which is prompt the dedication of over a hundred Scottish associations to St. Andrew has its roots in a beautiful legend – one of those legends around which Scotland’s nationalism has crystallized. In this, as in all legends, there is a small kernel of truth in a vast deal of fiction. Happily, there is no need here to separate the one from the other, for it was the whole legend truth and fiction combined, which gave Scotchmen their patron saint.

This legend begins with the life of Andrew, a fisherman of Bethsaida, and Galilee, a disciple of John the Baptist, who left his first master to follow Jesus of Nazareth whom John called the Lamb of God.11 B. found favor in the sight of Christ and became, like his brother, Simon Peter, a leader among the twelve apostles. He is probably best remembered as the one who discovered the boy with the loaves and the fishes when food was needed for the five thousand.  After the crucifixion of Christ, Andrew preached the Gospel in many places throughout the eastern Mediterranean, coming eventually to the village of Patras, in Achaia.  His success among the people there are riles the opposition of Aegeas, a pagan who was a Roman proconsul of that country. As a result Andrew was ordered to desist from his teachings. His efforts were continued, however, and were rewarded with the conversion of many people, among whom was Maximilla, the wife of Aegeas.  Thereupon he was condemned to death and, according to one authority, was “put to death by having been scourged and then fastened with cords to a cross in which position he remained teaching and instructing the people all the time, until his death at the end of two days.”  The cross on which he died is said to have been of the form of the letter X, a crux decussate.  Hence the cross which is universally accepted as a symbol of St. Andrew. His death occurred, it is believed, on November 30th, probably in the year 69 A.D. Thus it is that this festival is celebrated on that day each year. 

In the course of time the Roman Empire accepted Christianity and Andrew came to be held in great veneration.  We truly royal inconsistency the Emperor Constantius (cir. 305 A.D.) determined to punish Patras for its harsh treatment of the saint, and an army was sent against the village.  Now in the meantime a certain Regulus, who was acting as the Guardian of the martyr’s relics, had a dream in which he was instructed to take certain parts of the precious treasure and flee far away from Patras.  In obedience to these instructions he departed from the place before the arrival of the army. He traveled through the Mediterranean Sea and out into the Atlantic under the guidance of an angel who finally bade him stop on the shore of Fife in Scotland.  There he deposited his burden. He preached to the natives, and around a little church which it established in this way there grew up a town which is called today to St. Andrews. Years later a great university bearing the same name began its development in this town area

It was sometime after the arrival of Regulus before the union of the Scottish people was accomplished.  In the eighth century to powerful tribes, the Scots and the Picts, controlled the greater part of the land. Over the former Achaius rule this thing; over the latter was King Hungus.  At one time the two were brought into alliance with each other against the English, and the war which ensued seems to have furnished the occasion for the second episode in the development of the legend of St. Andrew. Of this the following account is given by one of the old Scottish historians.12  

“Though Achaius was desirous of Peace, yet the Pictish Concerns drew him on to a War.  For when Athelstan, the English-Man, had wasted the neighbouring Lands of the Picts, Hungus their King obtained the aid of ten thousand Scots, from Achaius, who before was disgusted with the English. He placed his Son Alphinus, a Commander, over them, who was born to him by the Sister of Hungus; by the Assistance of those Auxiliaries, he carried a great deal of Plunder out of Nothumberland.  Athelstan, a fierce Wariour, it was almost in his Heels, and overtook him not far from Hadington.  The Picts dismay’d at the sudden Approach of their Enemies, stood immediately to their Arms, and kept themselves and their Stations, ‘till very late; having Set their Watches for the Night, Hungus being inferior in other things, desired Aid of God, and gave himself up wholly to Prayer.  At last, when his Body was weary with Labour, and his Mind oppressed with Care, he seemed to behold Andrew the Apostle, standing by him and his Sleep, promising him the Victory.  This Vision being declared to the Picts, filled them full of Hope, so that they prepared themselves with great Alacrity for a Combat, which it was in vain to think of avoiding.  The next Day they came to a pitched Battel. Some add, that another Prodigy was seen in the Heavens, a cross like the Letter X, which did so teffifie the English, that they could hardly sustain the first Onset of the Picts.  Athelstan was slain there, who gave Name to the Place of Battel, which is yet called Athelstan’s Ford.  Hungus ascribed the Victory to St. Andrew, to whom, besides other Gifts, he offered the Tithes of his Royal Demeasns.”

This incident, it is asserted by some writers, led to the acceptance of Andrew as the patron saint of Scotland, but others hold that he had become such before the Battle of Athelstan’s Ford; hence his assistance to the Scottish forces at that time.  Certain it is that henceforth he occupied that high station. One authority states positively that after the battle ”they [Achaius and Hungus] when in Solemn procession, barefooted

 
ORIGINAL RULES, FIRST PAGE
 

 

the Kirk of St. Andrew, to return Thanks to God and his Apostle for their Victory; allowing that they and their posterity would ever bear the figure of the cross in their Ensigns and banners.”13 In this way, it would seem, Scotland acquired the emblem which appears today in her national flag and in the British Union Jack along with the crosses of St. George and St. Patrick. 

A subsequent manifestation of the devotion of the Scottish nation to St. Andrew is to be found in the dedication to him of one of its most ancient orders of knighthood the Order of St. Andrew, of the Most Nobel and Ancient Order of the Thistle.  Concerning the date of its establishment there is considerable controversy.14 some believe that its origin is contemporary with the Battle of Athelstan’s Ford.  Others assert “that when Achaius, King of Scotland [probably the same who ruled the Scots at the time of the battle], contracted an alliance with the Emperor Charlemagne, who took for device the Thistle and the Rule [Rue?], but this Motto ‘Il defend ma Defense’ and that soon after he founded this Order in Memory of the above Transaction.”  But both of these dates have little foundation.  It seems most probable that the order was first instituted by King James V in the year 1540. It was recognized by James II, of Great Britain, in 1687, a second time reconstituted by Queen Anne in 1703, and holds at this time I high place of honor among European knightly orders.  In this election other insignia and devices, as the following description of them will indicate, the order turned to the ancient symbols of St. Andrews. To these they added the Thistle in the Rue, ancient symbols of the Scots and the Picts, and a motto which may have already had a journal usage. 15 

“The Badge is Medallion of Gold, upon which is enameled the Effigy of Saint Andrew in a blue garment, holding a Burgundian, or Saint Andrew’s Cross of white enamel. He is surrounded with a glory. 16 

On the left side of their upper Garments, they (the Knights) where an eight pointed Star, embroidered in Silver.  The four central Rays of this Star are sharp pointed, the four angular, are squared, so as to form a Burgundian, or Saint Andrew’s Cross.  In the middle is a gold Shield, upon which is embroidered a green thistle, surrounded with Leaves, and Bearing a blue flower; around the whole is a circle of green Velvet, upon which the motto, Nemo me impune Lacessit appears embroidered in Gold Letters. 

The Collar which the Knights of St. Andrew whereupon the day of their Grand Feast and other extraordinary occasions, is made of Gold, consisting of Thistles, and Sprigs of Rue enameled Vert (being the two encient Symbols of the Scots and Picts) appendant to which is the image of St. Andrew irradiated, bearing before him, the Cross of his Martyrdom.” 

When the founders of the St. Andrew’s Society of Charleston chose their insignia and devices, they took the figure of the saint, the cross decussate, the thistle, and the motto; not necessarily because they were the insignia and devices of a knightly order but more probably because they were ancient Scottish symbols.  To these they added a crown, for what reason it is not clear, possibly because it occurs along with the thistle in the national badge of Scotland.17 The thistle, the crown, and the motto are employed in these society’s seal which is described in the original rules as “a Silver Seal with a Thistle and Crown over it, engrav’d upon it, and the motto, Nemo Me Impune Lacessit.”  The figure of the same supporting the cross has appeared from time to time on his publications. The cross along forms a prominent feature of its banner, and for a time it was required that it should be worn by each member at the anniversary meeting. 18 It is worn at the present time only by the president as a badge of his office. 

The men who thus drew upon the past for the name and insignia of their organization were more than ordinarily concerned with the present and the future. In their day the province of South Carolina was located on the southern frontier of British America – the outer edge of civilization where the present and future with the pressing concerns very rapidly obscure the past. Life on the frontier was harsh. The energies of the strong were largely consumed in the struggle to secure the means of subsistence.  

ORIGINAL RULES, SECOND PAGE, WITH SIGNATURES 

The efforts of the week and the unfortunate were inadequate for their preservation. Yet the frontier attracted to itself both the weak and the strong. When the strong, under such circumstances, began to take thought of the weak – when they had accumulated wealth sufficient to translate the thought into action, it was a sign that the frontier was beginning to break – that a mature society with a sense of its collective responsibility was on the point of taking the place of the primitive with its enforced individualism.  Such a sign is furnished by the parents of the St. Andrew’s Society. For the first time on the frontier of South Carolina a group of the strong and fortunate were taking thought of the poor and the distress in their midst. 19 as if they realize the significance of what they were doing, which is hardly possible that they actually did, the founders of the Society wrote down in the preamble of their rules: 

“as the Principal Design of a Society is to promote some Publick Good, by the joint Endeavours of a Number of People, where particular Men are well dispos’d to do Generous and Charitable Actions, but find it impracticable to carry on the same to Advantage without the Assistance and Concurrence of others who are equally inclin’d to establish and support good Undertakings; and as Rules and Orders are absolutely necessary for establishing and continuing all Designs of this Nature; we therefore whose names are underwritten, being willing to contribute our Utmost towards so good a Work, have unanimous enter’d into a Society at Charles-Town and South Carolina the Thirtieth Day of November, in the year of our Lord 1730, and have voted to agree to the following Rules, for the better Management and Improvement of the same.” 

The first step toward the organization of St. Andrews Society was taken at a meeting of gentlemen, “chiefly natives of Scotland,” who had come together on November 30, 1729, for the purpose of celebrating St. Andrew’s Day . 20 Perhaps it was the custom of the Scotchmen of Charles Town, of whom there must have been a goodly number in those days, together on that day, and on this particular occasion one of their number realizing the opportunity proposed an association. More perhaps a little group had got together in advance and had drawn up resolutions which were laid before the meeting. In the enthusiasm of the response a committee was probably appointed to draft rules, and the gentleman pledged their support. Perhaps there were several subsequent meetings to hear reports from the committee. It is certain that this task was finished before the next St. Andrew’s Festival, for on that day a set of rules, the original copy of which is still in the possession of the society, was read to the company and before they dispersed “Voted, unanimously Agreed, and Seal’d with the Seal of the Society.” 

Who were the founders of the Society, or Club as it was first called?  on the original copy of the rules, which required that “every Member hereafter to be emitted shall immediately subscribe the Rules,” under the words “Original Members Present, 30th of November, 1730” occur the signatures of the following thirty-four: 

A.Skene , Prest. John Fraser , Vic President 

James Crokatt , Treasurer 

Ja. Graeme , Assistant 

Waltr. Burn , Secry 

John Atchison  

William Cleiland  

John Crokatt  

James Berrie  

Danl. Crawford  

Wm. Scott  

Philip Ayton  

George Ducat  

Jno. Moultrie  

Henry Curry  

Ja. Bullock  

Willm. Tennant  

Jon. Buchanan  Alexander Smith  

James Hutchison  

And. Young  

Dun Campbell  

John X mGilivray  

   (His mark) 

Mungo Welsh  

James McNabney  

Wm McKenzie  

Ja. Walker  

Peter Murray  

Alex Van’ Dussen  

J. Skene  

David Anderson  

James Fyffe  

Alex Stewart  

Robert Nisbett  

 

Were these the only ones who had taken part in the work of organization? 

The first printed edition of the rules bearing the imprint, “London: Printed by James Crokat, Printer and Bookseller to the Society, at the Golden Keynear the Inner-Temple Gatein Fleet Street, 1731”  gives the following sixty-four names under the heading “Original Members present the 30th of November, 1730”: 21  

Alexander Skene , Esq; President. 

John Fraser , Vice-President. 

James Crokatt , Treasurer. 

James Greeme, Assistant. 

Walter Burn , Clerk. 

 

John Atchison  William Cleveland  

John Crokatt  

James Berrie  

Daniel Crawford  

William Scott  

Philip Ayton  

George Ducat  

John Mouttrie  

Henry Curry  

James Bullock  

William Tennont  

John Beauchanan  

Alexander Smith  

James Hutchison  

James Paine  

Jo. Monteith  

John Rigg  

William Thomson  

James Aikene  

Thomas Stit Smith  

James Aikene , Jun. 

Andrew Allen  

Tweedie Somerville  

William Gordon  

David McIver  

James Dickson  

John Haigs  

David Hunter  

George Sinclar  

 

Andrew Young  Duncan Campbell  

John McGilvray  

Mungo Welch  

James McNabney  

William McKenzie  

Ja. Walker  

Peter Murray  

Alex. Vander-Dussen  

John Skene  

David Anderson  

James Fyffe  

Alexander Stewart  

Robert Nisbet  

David Crokatt  

David Crawford  

William Williamson  

John Linning  

James Stewart  

Sir Alex. Cuming , Bart. 

Hugh Campbell  

Hugn Swinton  

James Kinloch , Esq. 

William Maxwell  

Walter Dallas  

John Clark  

Hugh Campbell  

Charles Crokatt  

John Smart  

James Crokatt , Bibliopol’ ad Societ’ 

 

Of the thirty additional names given by Mr. Crocket, nine (David Crokatt through James Aikene, Jun.) without others occur as signatures to the rules under the words “March 1st, 1730/1;” one (John Lining) occurs together with other signatures under “Admitted 30 Novr. 1731;” one (Hugh Swinton) with others under “Admitted May 31, 1733;” one (James Kinloch) with other under “Admitted May 31, 1735”; and fifteen do not appear anywhere on the Society’s roster.  In other words forty-nine of the names given by Mr. Crokatt are to be found as signatures to the rules, and fifteen are not there. 

What is the explanation of the discrepancy in these two lists?  Did Mr. Crokatt, the treasurer and Bibliopola ad Societatem as he styled himself, make, or cause to be made, on the day of the rules were ratified a list of all the gentlemen present regardless of whether they sign the roster?  Did thirty of them, perhaps in haste to get away as some at every meeting invariably are, leave without signing their names?  Did nine of these correct this omission by signing at the next meeting?  Were fifteen willing to put their names on the roster as amended on dates subsequent to November 30, 1730?  Did fifteen others, either from want of opportunity for continued negligence, never comply with the requirement? this may be the true explanation. On the other hand it may very well be that Mr. Crokatt was not strictly accurate when he gave his list the heading “Original Members present 30 November, 1730.”  It is possible that he included all those had taken part in the organization of the Society whether or not they were present on the occasion. This conjecture is substantiated, it would seem, by a list of members printed by the society in 1773. This list, which is styled “A correct List of the Members of the St. Andrew’s Club at Charlestown in South Carolina: From its Institution, in the Year 1729, to the Year 1773. Taken from the Journals of the Society,” 22 gives under the heading “Original Members who formed the Society, in the Year 1729 or subscribed the Rules on St. Andrew’s Day, 1730” forty-nine names – the thirty-four who signed the rules on November 30, 1730 and the fifteen who never signed the rules on November 30, 1730 and the fifteen who never signed at all. The other fifteen occur on this list, as on the roster, under later dates of admission. In other words, it seems that these fifteen who didn’t put their names on the roster at least had some part in the establishment of the Society and are, therefore, entitled to be considered among its founders. Perhaps they attended the organization meetings. Perhaps they gave the movement their endorsement. Perhaps they intended to give further support but were prevented by removal from the province or for some other reason. This seems positively to have been the case in one instance. 

Certainly there were no more picturesque character among these gentlemen than Sir Alexander Cuming, Bart. He was a Scottish baronet and advocate.  In response to a suggestion received in a dream he set out for America and arrived in Charles Town on December 5, 1729. On March 13th of the next year he started on a tour of the interior of the colony. Within the space of a single month he completed a journey of a thousand miles; gathered no end of minerals, medicinal herbs, and ”natural curiosities;” and induced the Cherokee Indians to make, according to his own account, a submission to King George II such as ”they had never before made either to God or Man.” On his return to Charles Town he was accompanied by seven Cherokee chiefs and warriors will May 13th set sail with him for England where they “furnished the sensation of the London season” and signed a treaty with the British Government by which “English prestige was decisively restored in the mountains.”  Subsequently this erratic Scottish nobleman experimented seriously with alchemy and develop a scheme “to pay off the British national debt by settling three hundred thousand Jewish families in the Cherokee mountains.”  These plans did not prove as successful as his Carolina venture, and he ”died, a poor brother of Charterhouse, in 1775.”  Sir Alexander’s signature does not appear on the St. Andrew’s roster for the very good reason that he was not in Charles Town at the time or after the rules were ratified. There is, however, no good reason to think that he did not contribute in some way to the establishment of the society. No doubt the ideal appeal to him. No doubt he attended the first meetings of his fellow countrymen in Charles Town and gave his counsel, with which he was probably very free, to their deliberations. And so may the other fourteen who didn’t sign the rules. 23 

It was saying, then, that the gentlemen whose names occur Mr. Crokatt’s list deserve to be considered as the founders of the society. It will be noted that Mr. Crokatt gives the name of Hugh Campbell twice. If this is an error, there were sixty-three founders. If it is not – they were two Hugh Campbells, father and son possibly – there were sixty-four. 

Would that they had all left records as complete as that of Sir Alexander Cuming!  It is possible partially to reconstruct the careers of a few of them; some are to be identified as names only; the majority are completely lost to sight. Alexander Skene, the president, seems to have been the most prominent among the group and public affairs. He appears as early as 1717 is a member of the Council of the province. He took a prominent part in the revolution which overthrew the rule of the Proprietors. In 1734, is recorded that he was the head of the board of trustees of a free school established at Dorchester. He was a native of Scotland.24Of John Fraser, the vice president, it is told that, having determined to seek his fortune beyond Scotland, his native land, he opened his Bible for guidance. His eyes fell first upon the 8th verse of the 31st chapter of Deuteronomy: “It is the Lord; He it is that before thee; He will be with thee; He will not fail thee, neither forsake thee; fear not, neither be dismayed.”  With this assurance he came to America and soon (cir. 1714) became a successful trader among the Yamasees of South Carolina.  He later acquired a great fortune is a merchant in Charles Town.  James Crokatt, the treasurer, was a merchant of “wealth and respectability.”  James Graeme, the assistant, was a lawyer who became chief-justice of the colony in 1749. 26 Of Walter Burn , the clerk, little is known save that he was an “eminent merchant.” 27 John Moultrie, who later became president of the Society, was a prominent physician, the father of Gen. William Moultrie of the Revolutionary War. 28Andrew Allen  was a merchant who develop large interests in the Indian trade. 29 John McGillivray was the head of the company trading with the Creek Indians.30 William Maxwell was evidently a clergyman. 31merchants and traders they seem to have been for the most part – what one would expect Scotchmen dwelling on the frontier to be. Doubtless they included many of the group of enterprising men in Charles Town on the historian of the southern frontier has described as a “class of merchants, unique in the South, who inevitably succeeded to the dominance of the southern Indian trade.”32 They were of the strong who had learned to meet the harsh life of the frontier. 

NOTES TO THE TEXT 

I. ORIGINS

  1. 1.        The Scots Year Book, 1928-1929, gives a list of 1288, and the editors complain that others will not take the trouble to send in their names.  These Associations have such names as the Caledorian Club, Gaelic Society, Burns Club, and St. Andrew’s Society 
  2. 2.        Col. O.J. Bond, a past president of the Charleston St. Andrew’s Society, has prepared a list of 104 some of which do not appear in The Scots Year Book. 
  3. 3.        The only exception which has been noted is the Society of Edinburgh, Scotland, which was organized to “combat a habit which they have observed of ignoring the Treaty of Union of 1707,” The Scots Year Book, 1928-1929, pp. 98-100.  In 1909 the St. Andrew’s Society of Philadelphia opposed a national organization, but nothing seems to have come of the plan, Minute Book No. 5, p. 174. 
  4. 4.        These lists have been published annually in The Scots Year Book for a number of years.  It is hardly possible that any of the older Societies are now omitted.  Col. Bond’s list seems to sustain this assertion. 
  5. 5.        A comparison of the original rules of the two societies shows that one follows the other, for the most part, word for word. The main difference between the two is that the Philadelphia society limited membership to “any man of honour and integrity provided he be a Scotsman or of Scots parentage” while that of Charleston admitted “any man of honour and integrity, of what nation, degree or profession soever.”  The original rules of the former are printed in An Historical Catalogue of the St. Andrew’s Society of Philadelphia, 1949-1896  (Phila. 1896).  Concerning the rules of the latter see the bibliographical note. 
  6. 6.        It may be that Thomas Graeme, the first president of the Philadelphia Society, was this person.  A James Graeme was the first assistant of the Charleston Society. 
  7. 7.        History of the St. Andrew’s Society of the State of New York, 1756-1906 (N.Y. 1906), p. 7. 
  8. 8.        Some have been destroyed and are, therefore, not to be had at all.  Others could not be secured for this study.  The Savannah (Ga.) Society appears to be the third oldest, but its early records are not extant.  History of the St. Andrew’s Society of the City of Savannah, Revised (Savannah, 1921).  For a dispute as to the age of this Society see The Scottish American, Jan. 10, 1917.  Since this chapter was written I have discovered that the Augusta (Ga.) St. Andrew’s Society, founded about 1874, was modeled, in part at least, after the one in Charleston; see Minute  
            Book, No. 3, p. 514-515. 

  1. 9.        The oldest St. Andrew’s Society in Scotland appears to be that on Aberdeen which was founded in 1788; see The Scots Year Book, 1928-1929, p. 131. 
  2. 10.     King, Mitchell, Address Delivered in the First Presbyterian Church before the St. Andrew’s Society, 1829, (edition of 1892), p. 60. 
  3. 11.     This account of the legend up to the point where Andrew becomes the patron saint of Scotland is based upon S. Baring-Gould, The Lives of the Saints (1893), articles on St. Andrew and St. Rue of Regulus.  Cf. Encyclopaedia Britanica (13th edition), index; Hone’s Every-Day Book, I, pp. 1538 ff.; and Andrew Lang, History of Scotland, I, p. 272. 
  4. 12.     Buchanan’s History of Scotland, Revised and Corrected from the Latin Original, by Mr. Bond (1722), I, p.  222. 
  5. 13.     An Historical Account of all the Orders of Knighthood, by an Officer of the Chancery (London, N. D.), II, pp. 10-16. 
  6. 14.     Cussans, J. E., Handbook of Heraldry (1893), pp. 245-246; and Orders of Knighthood, II, pp. 10-16. 
  7. 15.     It seems natural that these already popular Scottish devices should have been associated with those of Scotland’s patron saint; Cf. the coat of arms of Scotland. 
  8. 16.     The cross decussate is also a symbol of the Burgundian Order of the Golden Fleece; hence it is sometimes called a Burgundian cross. 
  9. 17.     The crown is, of course, a prominent device in the Scottish court of arms.  A crowned thistle is the royal badge of Scotland. 
  10. 18.     Rules of the St. Andrew’s Society of the City of Charleston, 1817, p. 13. 
  11. 19.     The St. Andrew’s Society appears to be not only the oldest benevolent society but also the oldest society of any kind in South Carolina; see Robert Wilson, Colonial Societies of South Carolina (manuscript in the Charleston Library Society). 
  12. 20.      King, Mitchell, op. cit., p. 60.  Mr King probably had access to evidence, now lost, which definitely established this point. There is no extant document, however, to support it. 
  13. 21.     It will be noticed that Mr. Crokatt misspelled many of the names.  I am inclined to think that this was the result of bad copying rather than of poor memory. 
  14. 22.     This list is bound with a copy of the first edition of the original rules; see bibliographical note. 

 

  1. 23.     For an account of Cuming’s life see Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732 (1929) and Stephen, L. (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, XIII, pp. 294-295. 
  2. 24.     King, Mitchell, op. cit, pp. 61-63; McCrady, Ed., South Carolina Under the Propriety Government, 1670-1719, (1897) index; and McCrady, Ed., South Carolina under the Royal Government, 1719-1776 (1899), index. 
  3. 25.     Mitchell King, op.cit., pp 63-64. 
  4. 26.     Ibid., p. 65 and South Carolina under the Royal Government, index. 
  5. 27.     King, Mitchell, op. cit., p.64. 
  6. 28.     Ibid., p. 65 and South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, V., p. 5 ff. 
  7. 29.     Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732, p. 121. 
  8. 30.     Ibid., p. 127. 
  9. 31.     His name appears on the list published in 1773 as “Rev. William Maxwell.” 
  10. 32.     Professor Verner W. Crane whose excellent study mentioned above has been recently published by the Duke University Press. 
 

 

Officers 2010

2011 Tentative Meeting Dates

Jan 31 - Mon

Feb 28 - Mon

Mar 31 - Thurs

Apr 28 - Thurs

May 31 - Thrus

Jun 30 Thurs

Sep 29 - Thurs

Oct 27 - Thurs

Ladies Night

Nov 29 - Tues

(Pending Chas Place Contract)

Dec 29 - Thurs

2012 Tentative Meeting Dates

Jan 31 - Tues

Feb 28 - Tues

Mar 29 - Thurs

Apr 30 - Mon

May 31 - Thurs

Jun 28 - Thurs

Steak Cookout CYC?

Sep 29 - Thurs

Oct 30 - Tues

Nov 29 - Thurs

Noon business meeting and evening banquet pending Chas Place availability.

Dec 29 - Thurs