Actually Benjamin Franklin was a fan of paper money as long as it was backed by a real asset so that 1) it could not be either counterfeit or destroyed (thus causing inflation or deflation) 2) its underlying asset not be drained out of the country by international trade imbalance depleting money for domestic trade (like gold or silver). This caused Nixon to close the gold window, e.g. 3) it be proportional to economic activity (trade) and not to a spot value of gold or silver subject to depreciation as productivity of mining it improves.
In "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency.” written by "your Grandfather" Ben, Franklin argues against gold and silver and for paper based on these principles.
Gold-standardized fiat currency proposals continue to raise criticisms based on these fundamental principles of demands on a funational currency formulated by Franklin. For example, as barbershores correctly points out in this post, the gold standard had to be repeatedly "relaxed" to expand the money supply as the US economy grew.
So the Europeans, Asians, and we Americans are all struggling with how to make money work for us without causing financial catastrophe's. I suspect that our difficulties stem from a fundamental flaw in our assumptions, ie that in order to protect the citizens' money it must come from a central source subject to judgement by a small number of people relying on delayed data of economic performance and with often either under- or over-leveraged, poorly transmitted, and similarly delayed monetary injections.