Final answer:
Providence in historical context concerns the divine guidance of human affairs, and opinions on providence's relationship with the constitution varied among American founders. The constitution reflected the enlightenment idea of governance based on 'the consent of the governed', with debates on protecting liberties while ensuring order. Compromises, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, revealed conflicts in ideals concerning human rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
Providence in the context of American history often refers to the belief that human affairs are directed by a supreme being with a benevolent purpose. Notably, the relationship between the constitution and providence was perceived differently by various historical figures during the founding of the United States.
Some individuals believed in the idea that the government's role was intricately linked with a divine plan, which was seen through the Puritan concept of covenant and the vision of a 'city on a hill.' Others, influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, viewed governance more secularly, asserting that law and reason were part of nature, and that the function of government was to protect and improve the lives of its people.
The creation and debates around the United States Constitution reflected these varied views. Historian Gary B. Nash noted that each state's unique constitution and the internal debates during their development stemmed from the principle that legitimate government is based on 'the consent of the governed.' This was part of the larger enlightenment belief, which also informed the Constitutional design, that aimed to safeguard against accruing too much power in the national government and at protecting liberties such as life, liberty, and property.
Compromises were inherent in the Constitutional design process, balancing between a government that preserves order and one that guarantees individual rights. These debates were clearly illustrated in the Three-Fifths Compromise and the allowance of slavery, showing a dissonance in ideals and practice concerning human rights.