Clio’s Scroll The Berkeley Undergraduate History Journal Vol. 19, No. 2 Spring 2018 No2 Vol. 19 Spring 2018 No. 2 Editorial Board EDITOR-IN-CHIEF JEREMY GOODWIN graduated with a degree in history. His primary interests lie in 20th-century U.S. social and cultural history. MANAGING EDITOR QINGYANG SONG graduated with degrees in history and chemistry. She has a particular interest in the cultural and intellectual history oF 20th-century Japan. ASSOCIATE EDITORS CAMRYN BELL is a senior majoring in history with a Focus on cultural history in the United States as well as the history oF inFormation. EMMA BIANCO is a senior majoring in history and American Studies. Her Focus is on the United States’ relationship with the USSR, and the study of ideology and propaganda in the 1950s and 1960s. MADISON BURSON is a senior history major with a particular interest in twentieth-century German social and cultural history. CAIT CADY is a senior studying history and political science. She is passionate about American political history and the history oF science. TIANYI DONG graduated with degrees in history and linguistics. Her concentration is on the intellectual history of modern East Asia, especially in the context of educational institutions. ZACHARY HANDLER is a senior concentrating in Early Modern Europe, with interest in Poland- Lithuania, military history, and Jewish history. He positions himselF more broadly as a student oF pre-industrial Europe, and oF the pre-industrial world. JAKE STARK graduated with degrees in history and political science. He concentrates on legal history in the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War period. No2 No2 Vol. 19 Spring 2018 No. 2 Contents 1 Letter From the Editors 3 Contributors 5 The Privileges of Parity: Rome’s Senatorial Oligarchy and Its Institutionalized Mechanisms oF SelF-Regulation During the Middle Republic Brian Tsui University oF CaliFornia, Berkeley 33 Savage Tories: Britain, Loyalists, and the Development oF American Racial Identity in New York and Pennsylvania, 1776-1779 Zachary Brown StanFord University 78 “For the Peasant to Profit, He Must Be Freed”: David Barrows’ Egalitarian Education ReForms in the Colonial Philippines, 1903-1909 Jeffrey R. Myers University oF CaliFornia, Berkeley 111 About Clio’s Scroll Clio’s Scroll, the Berkeley Undergraduate History Journal, is published twice yearly by students oF the Department oF History at the University oF CaliFornia, Berkeley. The journal aims to provide undergraduates with the opportunity to publish historical works and to train stafF members in the editorial process oF an undergraduate academic journal. Clio’s Scroll is produced by Financial support From the Associated Students of the University oF CaliFornia (ASUC) and the Department oF History. Clio’s Scroll is not an oFFicial publication oF the ASUC or UC Berkeley. The views expressed herein are solely those oF the authors and do not necessarily represent those oF the journal, the editors, the university, or sponsor. Letter From the Editors Dear Readers, We are happy to present the Spring 2018 issue oF Clio’s Scroll. This issue contains three wonderful essays that each remind us of history’s continuing relevance to the present. In his essay, “The Privileges of Parity: Rome’s Senatorial Oligarchy and Its Institutionalized Mechanisms oF SelF-Regulation During the Middle Republic,” UC Berkeley senior, Brian Tsui, takes a novel, theoretically inFlected, approach to the study oF ancient Rome. He explores the institutional rules, both spoken and unspoken, oF the Roman Senate, demonstrating how the Senate worked to preserve itselF as an institution by regulating and policing the behavior oF its members. These rules became so institutionalized that, as Tsui argues, they endured even as the Roman Oligarchy’s power began to wane. In “Savage Tories: Britain, Loyalists, and the Development of American Racial Identity in New York and Pennsylvania, 1776-1779,” recent StanFord graduate, Zachary Brown, examines anti-British and anti-Loyalist sentiment during the American Revolutionary War, arguing that such rhetoric was inherently racialized. Indeed, he demonstrates that, as the war progressed, colonial depictions oF the British and their Native American allies began to blur together as the British began to take on many oF the same “savage” characteristics as the well-established Native American Other. As such, Brown makes an important contribution to our understanding oF the origins oF American racial and national identity. Finally, in his senior thesis, “‘For the Peasant to Profit, He Must Be Freed’: David Barrows’ Egalitarian Education Reforms in the Colonial Philippines, 1903-1909,” recent UC Berkeley graduate, Jeffrey Myers, examines David Barrows’ tenure as a colonial official in the Philippines. In contrast to many oF his colleagues, Barrows advocated an educational program For the colony that privileged building literacy over inculcating technical skills, putting him at odds with the American business community. As such, Myers sheds light on the highly contested nature oF American educational policy in the colonial Philippines and, in doing so, compels us to reckon with the complexity of Barrows’ legacy as both a pedagogical progressive and a colonial oFFicial with racial views that we would today view as abhorrent. As all three authors demonstrate, the legacies oF the past are almost Clio’s Scroll | 2 never simple. Whether it be the regulatory mechanisms institutionalized by the Roman Senate, the racial discourse produced by American colonists in rural Pennsylvania and New York during the Revolutionary War, or the educational policies oF the American colonial project in the Philippines, the interpretations and narratives that we glean From historical study are never predetermined. In this sense, the essays contained in this issue remind us oF why we study history: to interpret (or reinterpret) the past, not simply chronicle it. The Editorial Board would like to thank the Associated Students oF the University oF CaliFornia (ASUC) For their generous Funding that makes this publication and editorial process possible. As always, we are indebted to the Berkeley Department oF History For its steadFast support, guidance, and encouragement. Finally, we would like to thank the contributors; we hope their essays will inspire our readers and perhaps provoke thoughtful discussion. Sincerely, The Editors Contributors ZACHARY BROWN recently graduated from StanFord University with a major in History and concentration in United States history. His research interests include the American Revolutionary War, anti-Indianism in the early American Frontier, and the development oF Federal Indian Policy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. JEFFREY R. MYERS recently graduated From the University oF CaliFornia, Berkeley as a double major in Political Science and History and a minor in Political Economy. His research interests range From gerrymandering and early US elections to late modern Europe and Southeast Asian history. BRIAN TSUI is a senior at UC Berkeley pursuing a major in History with an intended concentration in the Roman Republic, and a minor in Public Policy. His research interests include ancient Rome, U.S. foreign policy, democratization, and the resiliency oF international institutions. He wishes to thank ProFessor Michael Taylor for his inspiring and insightful support throughout the research and writing process. The Privileges oF Parity Rome’s Senatorial Oligarchy and Its Institutionalized Mechanisms of Self-Regulation During the Middle Republic Brian Tsui I. Introduction For centuries, the Roman Senate governed the Republic’s vast dominions, and those outside its chambers listened. But to this charmed clique oF three hundred senators, its authority was only as powerFul as the willingness oF each individual member to abide by certain norms oF conduct—norms designed to safeguard the Senate’s overarching goal: to never lose its oligarchical control over Rome to the people, or worse, a tyrant sprung from its own ranks. So when Tiberius Gracchus, an aristocrat and senatorial magistrate of the most Roman blood, infringed upon the Senate’s authority and violated its norms oF conduct, he paid a terrible price.1 Senators, FearFul oF their internal rules cascading down a slippery slope, stormed the Capitoline to forcefully arrest what they saw as Tiberius’ illegal re-election For plebian tribune. As conFusion descended into violence, Tiberius and some three hundred oF his supporters were killed, bludgeoned with “hastily- improvised” clubs and broken bits of furniture from senators and their retainers.2 If Tiberius Gracchus overstepped the Senate’s internal precedents and principles in 133 BCE, his successors in the Following decades oF the Republic would outright trample over them. The Senate From 88 - 82 BCE saw open civil war between legions Fighting over Rome under the Sullan and Marian Factions, and From 49 - 44 BCE saw Julius Caesar destroy his senatorial enemies and declare himselF dictator perpetuo, dictator For liFe. For 1 Plutarch, The Life of Tiberius Gracchus, in Parallel Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinemann, 1921), 1.1, 4.1. 2 Ibid., 19.2-19.5; David Stockton, The Gracchi (OxFord: Clarendon Press, 1979), 76. For a careFul consideration and reconstruction oF surviving accounts on the conFrontation, see Alan Edgar Astin, Scipio Aemilanius (OxFord: Clarendon Press, 1967), 218 - 225. Although Plutarch notes that “more than