Stephan Kinsella mentioned a book in his Bitcoin speech he just gave a few days ago: http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol085-the-history-meaning-and-future-of-legal-tender/
I based it upon the Archive.org version here: https://archive.org/details/legaltenderstudy00brecuoft
Here is the author's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophonisba_Breckinridge
Page 39: par. 0: gold
The weight of the gold noble was not diminished, but its nominal value was increased from 6s. 8d. to 8s. 4d., and a new goid coin2 was introduced.3
Page 53: par. 1: commodities
Thus, in the earliest period of colonial development, the lack of metallic money was made good by the regulated use of commodoties on which was bestowed the debt-satisfying power at definite rates.
Page 53: Footnote 8: Missing a closing quote
It is interesting to note that this currency was subject to the abuses from which metallic currency has always suffered. Massachusetts found it necessary in 1646 to provide that to be a tender it must be “entire, free from deforming spots, without breaches, and suitably strung.
Page 55: par. 1: seventeenth
But the inadequacy of the supply of coin, together with the unsettled condition of affairs in England in the middle of the seventeeth century, had led Massachusetts to a project bordering on treason, if not actually amounting to it.
Page 86: par. 1: government
that principle of division will not, however, prove satisfactory in treating of the action the federal goverment since organized under the constitution.
Page 153: par. 2: withheld
Under the constitution such power as was believed to be vested in either government was bestowed upon the federal government as distinguished from that of the respective states; and prior to 1862 it was supposed that the power to bestow this quality on bills of credit was witheld from both.
Page 160: Footnote 2: "Annual Encyclopædea" to "Annual Encyclopædia"
Page 165: last par.: misapprehension
This statement is, as we are satisfied, founded in an entire misapre-hension
Page 166: par. 5 (second from bottom): admitted
We cannot consent to this, because if any order or statement was made orally, unless it was reduced to record or is assented to or admited by the counsel for the United States, [...]
Page 35: Two footnote 3s
Page 40: Two footnote 7s
Page 113: Two footnote 1s
Page 140: Two footnote 9s