Um yes? At least that's what historians seem to think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_Act
Isn't that strange how much of the revolution seems to focus around having control of your own money? Under a gold standard, you don't have control of your own money. This is also why Greece is totally fucked right now. They don't have their own money; they use Euros.
Obviously that's not the only thing that caused a war. It's one more thing to a big pile of things the colonies wanted to control but couldn't.
I think you're forgetting the fact that the colonies also did not like not having control on what taxes, acts, laws were imposed on them without them having a say in the matter.
No taxation without representation, remember?!
The money was not an issue in the end it was the fact that the colonialism and mercantilism that England put the colonies through was keeping them from advancing. Export raw materials to England, and England turns around and dumps finished goods on the colonies, also England imposed controls on them that they could only export raw materials and not produce anything else. If anything it was a fight to stop letting their economy be dictated by England.
The reason Greece is truly in a "debt crisis" (different than USA debt ceiling fabricated crisis)is because their debt issuance really is an IOU because they do not control their currency, in the case of gold, you can't go out and dig more gold without incurring significant costs, but the committee that controls the Euro can give Greece more Euros, in a government controlled currency such as USD the government can always print more dollars.
It sounds like you are trying to use this as an example as why government controlled currency is a good thing, but giving government that power to many people is a bad thing. It does not encourage fiscal responsibility, and adding a government controlled currency also forces government to learn monetary responsibility, something that a gold money does not require.