For a very long time, the usual narrative for the Constitutional Convention was pretty much what the Federalists would have said: that under the Articles of Confederation the states had a national government ( the Continental Congress) that was too weak: it couldn't manage a national currency, couldn't tax and pay debts, couldn't conduct foreign policy, and that because of this, the new country was on the brink of disaster. And at the time a number of political leaders , like Hamilton, Washington and Madison ,part of the wealthy elite, felt there was a danger. They saw Shay's Rebellion as a crisis that could spread over all the states, with more angry mobs threatening civil and social order. When the Constitution was created, it put in place a much bigger , stronger central government- because that was what was needed. In the Federalist view, the Constitution saved the new country from disaster. In the 19th c., going into the 20th., that would be the view of most historians, like John Fiske.

However, that's been challenged...somewhat. In the mid 20th c. people like Merrill Jensen began to modify that simple idea. They questioned the crisis and so the inevitability of the Constitution, suggesting that perhaps the country could have bumbled along under the A of C just fine, with small fixes and adjustments to the Continental Congress' powers, and pointed out that the soldiers fighting the Revolutionary War and the soldiers later marching in Shay's Rebellion had aims closer to the A of C than the Constitution. In the past several decades there has been a growth in the Libertarian political movement, and they have tended to embrace the A of C as being just the kind of limited government they like.

So, yes, some people have endeavored to say that the Constitution was counter-revolutionary. However, to back up that claim requires a lot of careful selection of facts and simplification ( which is something that tends to separate good historians from political writers). Because it's really hard to find , in the 1780's, a state in actual revolution, with power being seized and held by the people. Despite the everybody-is-created-equal rhetoric of the Declaration, it just didn't happen. There were wealthy elites already in control in all the states that supported the Revolution, and after it, under the A of C, they were still in control. Shay's Rebellion worried them, made them make concessions in Massachusetts: but those were small concessions. If the Constitution resulted in a few decades of those elites in charge of the government, with presidents always being from Virginia or Massachusetts, there is no reason to suppose that those elites would not have still been in control of their states if the Constitution hadn't happened. Whether Washington and Jefferson and Madison & Co. governed the US or just Virginia, they were in power. Moreover, while it seemed to promise stability to the elites, the Constitution may have made it easier , decades later, to shift total power away from them by making it harder for political power, generally, to be concentrated. It's possible to imagine the Clintons and Livingstons completely in control of New York forever, under the A of C. By creating a counterbalancing federal government, such state empires became harder.

A very nice essay on the various historical perspectives on the A of C is Thomas J Slaughter's Merrill Jensen and the Revolution of 1787