 Getting funding for internal improvements is a good way of downplaying some of the radicals among them and making sure that there is no state out there getting too many questions about self-determination on their own right. Yeah. When it comes to internal improvements, there's a tremendous amount of cronyism that's involved. I was always influenced. One of the first books I ever read was The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsom. When he goes into how the government, Transcontinental Railroads, Union Pacific, and Central Pacific in particular were built, they were built very poorly. They used the wrong materials. It was hastily done. There were these winding routes because they were trying to collect more money, et cetera, as opposed to James Hill's private Great Northern. I was always very influenced by this argument and I really try to show this in my own book, cronyism, because yeah, these constraints do affect government projects, right? So the national road was built with cost of materials. There were political appointees of people in charge of creating the road that shouldn't really have been in charge of this, but they were there because it was a patronage job. There were political considerations for the route of the road and Gallatin basically told Jefferson that, hey, the road should go through various towns because we need them for an election. I think in one case, one of them was also Gallatin's hometown. So a little bit of cronyism, personal sweetener there, and yeah, this is a huge issue because you see it throughout government investment, so-called investments, that this is the inevitable result. So we really pushed for, to keep New England in the union, we had the land speculation schemes of the Yauzu. We were trying to satisfy them, or Jefferson was trying to placate them that way. The internal improvements is really to keep the West from leaving, right? And this is always the idea that you got to give them a sweetener, right, if they're supposed to stay in the union. And this is a big issue. And another point I just want to mention, when we talk about various people, free market people, otherwise coming out in favor of internal improvements, it is important to note that many laissez-faire economists at this time had also made, unfortunately in our opinion, they made exceptions saying that, oh well, under certain conditions, the government can build roads like Adam Smith or other people, whether it's military necessity like for national defense or just something else, et cetera. In Americans, they accentuated that, they thought one, but we can spend more money if we have all these fiscal surpluses, and if we want to keep the West in the union or if it's underdeveloped, et cetera. But it ultimately came from some of the free market economists, the economic thought at this time, not really fully recognizing the errors in their own logic. This do have consequences in the policy realm, all right? And it's just important to note this. I remember reading one time, Charles Sumner noted free market, Republican, the later Republican Party actually had read John Baptiste say a treatise on political economy, and he had underlined the parts where say had come out in favor of internal improvements. And so it's like, it's an interesting dynamic. So it's just important to keep that in mind. Jefferson was anti-internal improvement. He recognized the corruption that it would cause, the political issues. He was familiar with free market thought. But once again, he acquiesced, particularly when he realized that he had to keep, you know, he had all this land in Louisiana, they better start building public works to connect the West with the East.