My position is that a true gold standard is impossible not that its pursuit is irrelevant. The decision to produce one would be a governmental decision but capitalism arises without governmental initiation. Left to it self capitalism works and thrives left to itself the gold standard runs aground and is immediately changed. Thus, I see no contradiction in my position.
An elitist is different from an aristocrat in my view but even with that term Jefferson spoke often of the desirability of the government and society being run by an "aristocracy of virtue" Hamilton on the other hand often took cases of poor men even escaped slaves without fee. He never looked down on the working man and counted many among his followers in NYC. His political opponent in the state, George Clinton, represented the land owning interests. Being concerned with non-agricultural development does not make one an elitist. What is your evidence from his deeds that he viewed the world like an aristocrat? Almost all evidence about Jefferson shows precisely that he was an aristocrat and he lived like one until his death. He put on an act for his democratic followers which seems to have had a lasting impact but it was a show.
Hamilton was a realist not an aristocrat and never lived like one rather like a middle class lawyer. My belief that any significant study of the two men confirms exactly what I have said. Hamilton never believed in currying favor with the lower class by acting the Super-democrat and feared the rule of the lowest class that is true but this does not make him an aristocrat.
I can't tell you offhand which writings I relied upon for that era but will determine them and get back to you.
You are correct that is a theoretic possiblity and seems to have been the case in the last quarter of the 1800s but it is rare and not typical. During that period there was great hardship and political organizing to alleviate those hardships. Great strikes and massive increases in labor organization accompanied the reductions of wages necessary to adjust to the decline in the money supply. Deflation produces falling nominal wages and even if real wages are increasing the "money illusion" of the working class generates strife. It was feared that communist or anarchist revolution was upon us during those years because of the labor unrest. This had its political results and pressure for an increased money supply to raise prices and wages.
Lack of divisibility is the achilles heel of the gold standard and its unweildly nature.
Deflation produces falling nominal wages and even if real wages are increasing the "money illusion" of the working class generates strife. Re-education would not be that difficult, but as I said, we can have honest money with a growing MS as long as the distribution of the new money is equitable. For example, why not create a nickel, annually, for each dollar of money supply and give it to the owner, thereof; or give $200 to everyone ($60 billion) to grow the 1.2 trillion money supply by 5%; just take control over the distribution of money from the unproductive, banking sector that, despite all the special privileges heaped upon it, always gets in trouble and has to be bailed out by you and me.
Lack of divisibility is the achilles heel of the gold standard and its unweildly nature.
I am unaware of any limitation due to divisibility. Nor is it unweildy since a redeemable paper money and redeemable coins operate EXACTLY as unredeemable fiat money.