Well, Congress started doing this right away (there was no federal currency, and, thus, the U.S. used a variety of foreign coins for a loooong time. Interesting that Congress had to pass new laws regularly, but nobody ever complained, not even those Founders.
Here is a decent source for Monetary Acts over the first 80, or so, years of the Republic.
As for Thomas Paine, nobody is perfect. I have never read his Agrarian Justice tract, so I am not too familiar with how far he may have strayed.
He strayed far enough to advocate a guaranteed wage for all. Paine played an instrumental role in the American revolution. However, his philosphies were in line with the French Revolution (which is where he ended up). Another great force in American history who was basically an economic kook. If you want to cite him as an authority on monetary matters, don't be surprised if someone raises his interesting socialistic ideas.
But I remain mystified by your evident hostility toward gold and silver.
I have no hostility to gold or silver, nor do I have hostility toward paper.
Thanks for the source. All I can say is that declaring that foreign gold and silver coins could pass as legal tender may be construed as some sort of foreigh affairs power properly consigned to the United States, and does not really infringe the remaining power of the States to make nothing but gold and silver coin legal tender in payment of debts.
Of course, under my view, Congress could not have declared that no copper coins but its could pass as legal tender, as it did in 1792. In the Webster quote I provided, he said that “regulate the value thereof” had something to do with foreign coin; I know at one time there was concern about Chinese copper coins, but would be surprised if that were back in 1792.
I still think the Constitution was intended to prevent Congress from issuing paper money and forcing people to take it as legal tender, and I still think that the erosion of this Constitutional limitation is the root of our economic woes.