In your comments on the constitutionality of (un-backed) paper money and the history, thereof, you over-simplify some key issues and make some outright errors. For example, you oversimplify the interplay between three distinctly different, but related issues: 1.) coining money, 2.) emitting bills of credit, and 3.) establishing legal tender. States were explicitly disallowed from coining money (a power explicitly granted to Congress), from emitting bills of credit (i.e. issuing un-backed paper money) and from making anything but gold or silver legal tender. Congress was explicitly granted the power to coin money. The issues, as I say, are very complex. Based on original intent, however, both the states and the federal government were precluded from issuing money.
Also, you cited wildcat banks as examples of banks issuing currency. This is inaccurate. Wildcat banks notes, like all 19th century bank notes, were legally redeemable in specie. They were not legal tender. To make it difficult for people to redeem in specie wildcat banks established their main offices where “even the wildcats wouldn’t go.” Before 1933, the only fiat currencies were the Continentals issued during the Revolutionary War, the Greenbacks issued during (and directly after) the Civil War, and maybe an issue during the War of 1812. In any event, banks issued bank notes, not currency.
Currency- Any form of money in actual use as a medium of exchange.
- circulation, vogue, medium of exchange.
Wildcat banks issued what passed as currency. Since the specie standard left America without sufficient money their notes were used as money.
As for your first point I didn't mention the interplay between those issues. That section of the constitution was written to stop the states from doing what they had done as colonies. They had issued paper money, issued Bills of Credit and made things payable in things other than Gold or Silver. I don't think they ever issued any GS coins though.
Since that section explicitly prohibited states it would have also prohibited the feds if that had been the intent. A blanket prohibition on all governments like in the 2d amendment would have been established not one explicitly directed at the states.
If only coins were to be issued (how is another question for you since a Mint was not mentioned) why would the phraseology have been "coin Money" rather than "issue coins" or "mint coins?" Had there been a desire to prevent the issuance of paper money that would have been made explicit since the writers were very familiar with the experience of the Continentals. But since Morris and Hamilton were on the Committee on Style I am sure they would have been opposed to any such flat prohibition and prevented its inclusion.
Even by that time Hamilton had expert knowledge of the functions of the Bank of England and was well aware of its
great assistance to the Crown in raising sufficient funds for its wars. Wars impossible under a gold standard. Wars which had made redeemability of BoE notes out of the question. After decades some redeemability was regained only to be lost again a short time later.
Non-metallic currency was clearly a means to use the power granted Congress to declare war and provide for the national defense. Since that was impossible under a gold standard (we had no gold) it is clearly constitutional.