The policy created tension between the colonies and Great Britain and was cited as a grievance by colonists early in the American Revolution.

However, the consensus view among modern economic historians and economists is that the debts by colonists to British merchants were not a major cause of the Revolution.

In 1995, a random survey of 178 members of the Economic History Association found that 92% of economists and 74% of historians disagreed with the statement, "The debts owed by colonists to British merchants and other private citizens constituted one of the most powerful causes leading to the Revolution.

[7] These colonies had issued paper fiat money known as "bills of credit" to help pay for military expenses during the French and Indian Wars.

Because more paper money was issued than what was taxed out of circulation, the currency depreciated in relation to the British pound sterling.

The resultant inflation was harmful to merchants in Great Britain, who were forced to accept the depreciated currency from colonists for payment of debts.

This tight money policy created financial difficulties in the colonies, where gold and silver were in short supply.

This legislation differed from the 1751 act in that it prohibited the colonists from designating paper currency for use as payment for any debts, public or private.

[10] According to historian Jack Sosin, the British government had made its point: After nine years, the colonial agents had secured a paper currency for the provinces.

[14]Currency Acts created tension between the colonies and the mother country, and were a contributing factor in the coming of the American Revolution.

[15] When the First Continental Congress met in 1774, it issued a Declaration of Rights, which outlined colonial objections to certain acts of Parliament.

[16] However, according to historians Jack Greene and Richard Jellison, the currency debate was no longer really a "live issue" in 1774, due to the 1773 amendment of the act.