It seems pretty clear that the right to peacefully assemble was important to the architects of the Constitution, at least when faced with fresh infringement on such a right by the British. But once the newly independent American central government was established, to what degree did those same men retain their view of a protesting citizenry? Did they change their tune once in the seat of power?
The first rebellion of note the new country faced was Shays’ Rebellion in which a number of revolutionary veterans were upset about taxes being levied upon them in the new Confederacy. The consequence of this rebellion was that the Confederation was dissolved and a Constitutional Convention convened in which our current form of government would come to fruition. This rebellion essentially showed the early constitutional architects that while they liked the idea of a loose association of states only to unite in the national defense, the absence of centralized power made it difficult for the government to respond to popular uprising, so they acted and replaced the loose association with a strong, more centralized Republican government based on the Republican principle, federalism, and checks and balances.
The second uprising, and the first real rebellion faced by the United States of America (Shays’ was the CSA) was the Whiskey rebellion in which the new national government was able to show its newfound strength it was created to yield. The rebellion lasted three years but in effect was not successful in anything but reassuring the young nation that it had domestic power capable of putting down internal armed insurrection. Washington being the great leader he was, did not aim to embarrass the new citizens of the country he helped to form, but he did intend on showing others interested in armed uprising that the coordination, skill and, if necessary, strength of the federalists government would be more than enough to maintain order. In all I believe only a few people died, according to official records, and that the faith in this form of government was solidified; as the protestors of the excise tax ended up just voting for republicans in the next election as opposed to taking their grievances to the street with arms.
It’s hard to compare these types of protests to the ones happening now. These two “protests” or rebellions in our history were huge though, they ignited first the thirst for a new government that could stand the test of time. As opposed to a loose confederation of states we got a union of states in a republic, and federalism, which is much more well thought than the CSA was. Second, the whiskey rebellion, while still exposing huge holes in the young nations ability to lay and collect tax, solidified the strength and efficiency that this new government (that was tested by Shays’ rebellion and widely criticized as weak) could respond to issues of sovereignty.
Even back then the country was torn on the issue of protest during peace time, but given we’re a democracy there shouldn’t ever be anything we wholeheartedly agree on aside from the national defense. Democracies just don’t have full consensus, something the founders knew, and something some of them were less comfortable with than others. This is when you saw the advent of the two party system and the beginnings of the operations that would underpin elections for the better part of the 1800’s. Election reform wasn’t achieved until the civil war era.
Source: I’m a political scientist, specializing in American institutions, which this pertains to. I’d suggest books on executive power in the early republic which cover this stuff pretty dutifully. Apologies for grammar as I’m on mobile.