The constitution specifically gave the Federal Government the authority to tax, including the whiskey tax. The people rebelling against the whiskey tax had zero legal or constitutional right to do so. Suppressing the rebellion was not tyranny.
I'm still perplexed by jamis's answer. He apparently thinks that calling an event "semi-obscure" is another way of saying it doesn't matter. Or at least, that's my best guess.
I guess we're accustomed to thinking that any rights you lose, you don't get back, or that if we let the government get away with something once, we can never stop them from doing it again. That sounds compelling, (the inverse of the Whig view of history), but how does it compare with the facts? I think, if you look at what has actually happened, it's just not true.
Blacks and women were kept from voting for a long time, but they do now.
Gun carry restrictions from 150 years ago have been repealed. Maybe not in all states, but in the majority of them.
From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the similar laws enacted in the WWI era, there have been a lot of encroachments on freedom of speech that simply wouldn't be allowed by the courts today.
Other examples may occur to you.