 This is something that is usually kind of sold as an obvious good move, right? I think the typical high school textbook may even mention a little bit of constitutional concerns at the time that ultimately this was just too much. Yeah, it's such a good steal You could not pass it up But I think it's interesting from this perspective and I really think this chapter is one of the very best in Really highlighting the difference of the narrative That that you have outlined here building off of Rothbard's work because again, it's The the the impact of this absolutely corrupting the political ideals Of what we think about with Jeffersonian politics, right? I love the way that you start off this chapter Framing it with the death of Hamilton How his death in 1804 Was the hammer hammered the nail into the federalist coffin But while the reactionary forces decayed their special interest policies lived on for slowly But surely the libertarian republicans embraced statism and so that it is this move Because of you touching on the aspects that we were talking about last week with kind of recognition that with the drawing back Of the the spending programs of the federalist regime things like that. It's not only important just in a tax aspect, right? Like oh, well, you know, this is going to create more birds and taxes on farmers and things like that But there really is a corrupting element here when you think about the creation of of new government offices when you think about Money spent and investments That you know have to be allocated through the political process. You start dealing with a sectional differences and different considerations in here you the the growth of this major increase of spending done through questionable constitutional grounds though from the perspective of You know the way that we that we understand the reason for the constitution It was explicitly designed to expand the government not to limit it And therefore it it can be very fairly argued as was the time that this was a constitutional move Even if it when it gets the jeffersonian principles and that the strictly the strict reading of the constitution That the old republicans That that we've been praising, you know That that that strategic pivot You know There is a sound legal argument in defense of the constitution, but it goes against that work being done by an anomaly in theory The political party in power right now Yeah, so this this is a very important point to understand Regarding the louisiana purchase and just what exactly it did to the republican party because in many ways it's sort of this It was This corrupting agent because it it swelled the amount of land in the country To an enormous size and this led to all sorts of changes in the republican party, which which we will Which we will get to but it was this this Usually when the louisiana purchase is discussed in high school You know american history textbooks or even college american history textbooks It's described as one of the most important and beneficial per you know laws in united states history and it's generally regarded as jefferson's best legislation So that's when people who usually are jefferson haters. They'll say well, he did that He did the louisiana purchase, which of course from our perspective is probably like his worst thing that he did right because um By pushing for this it really did open up pandora's box so to speak to broad constructionism. All right the constitution does Intended by you know is created as intended by the federalists It does allow for the purchase and annexation and incorporation of territories into the united states They they they intended this okay, and many republicans also argued along these lines But jefferson was dedicated during this time period to upholding his strict constructionist view And his logic was basically saying okay We can read into the treaty making power because of course there has to be a treaty in order to purchase the The land you know from from another country, but it's saying well once we do that Well, then you know the powers are boundless. So wouldn't it be better to just pass an amendment? Okay, requiring uh, are you like pass an amendment allowing or explicitly enabling us to do that then we can purchase the territory and for this it's it's really the precedent So it's the idea that's saying all right. We're in control of the government We could read the constitution broadly or we could stick by our principles Read the constitution strictly and then we're going to set a good precedent because even this way It would still be a problem if louisiana was purchased But it would have been less a problem because at least there would have been an amendment Okay, but jefferson ultimately Um said he discarded this this possibility. He said all right We'll pass an amendment after the fact which is Completely useless then it defeats the purpose of actually having a binding constitution And once he did that once he he sort of broke his rule once he stuck his hand into the cookie jar So to speak well, then he really just said all right. Well, why don't we use the constitution? Uh, you know read it broadly to accomplish other aims that we want and then when that happened the whole strict constructionist approach Really suffered a fatal setback So this louisiana purchase has important implications not just for territorial land You know land mass and all of that but also for the um, the the the constitutional implications regarding other policy So it's really important to understand that jefferson He he was really torn by this and he was at one point going to push for An amendment and even though some people said napoleon wasn't gonna wait Uh, napoleon was gonna wait. He needed the money. Uh, he wasn't gonna Uh, he he he's only gonna sell it to the united states. So there there wasn't someone else Uh, he needed the money and it could it could have gone through But instead jefferson just basically decided to downplay constitutional issues and once he did that the die was cast