(1 / 2)

While you wait for a more direct answer, you may be interested in this previous answer of mine to a similar question: "Does the US Constitution allow for states to secede from the Union?"

The answer is, "No," except in the case of passing a Constitutional Amendment. Which means 2/3 of both Houses of Congress have to agree to the secession and 3/4 of the state legislatures do, too. No single state has the unilateral power to secede, but the states have the collective power to let any one of them--or all of them--secede if they wish to. This is how the Constitution was understood to operate, and this was intentional. Though there were some exceptions, by and large, even Southerners understood this to be the case, and most arguments supporting the legality of secession argued for its legality on an extra-Constitutional basis (a "natural right" to secede pretty much identical to the right to rebel as argued in the Declaration of Independence, but not a Constitutional right).

The reason for this was that they had already established a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation While that document didn't give a state the unilateral right to secede, either, it nonetheless made it very difficult to pass or enforce laws--any changes to the Articles themselves needed unanimous consent, with each state getting one vote, and anything else needed 9 of 13 votes. But even if a law passed, the states retained their sovereignty and did not have to enforce them, nor did Congress have any mechanism for making a state abide by any such federal law. In short, every state could veto anything it wanted.

This goes back to that previous answer of mine. Secession is essentially just the veto, or "nullification", of all the laws, not just one. Considering the issues that this had caused under the Articles of Confederation, the reason for the implementation of a new constitutional document was to rectify this situation. The U.S. Constitution purposely gave more power to a central government so that states could not nullify laws unilaterally at their own whim any longer, and this would include the suspension of all laws, i.e., secession.

As mentioned in that previous answer, during the ratification debates, Virginia actually considered giving a provisional ratification, in case they decided at a later date that they didn't want to be a part of the Constitution any longer. The Federalists opposed this successfully, with James Madison specifically saying that it would be worse than rejection, because it would put the U.S. in the same position as they had been under the Articles. And "provisional" state could decide to withdraw over anything, and the Constitution would rapidly collapse. So when New York considered a similar plan of provisional ratification, Alexander Hamilton wrote to Madison asking for his advice, and he told him the same thing: ratification must be "in toto and for ever" for the Constitution to have any sort of real authority and lasting power. Ultimately, all the states ratified the Constitution without reservation.

it seems the nation was so paranoid about another tyrannical federal government, it almost seems expected that they would ad a secession clause.

This was what the Constitution was all about. It was a compromise among the states surrendering some of their individual sovereignty to a central authority so that they did not dissolve into competing countries and risk war with each other, or manipulation and war from other countries, either. But they only aimed to give up the minimum amount of power that a central government would need to become functional, which it was not under the Articles of Confederation. Thus, instead of de facto unilateral nullification power as had occurred under the Articles, the Constitutional Amendment process was introduced. It wasn't unilateral, nor was it particularly easy so that it would't be subject to tyranny of a majority or the prevailing but temporary political whims of any given age. Instead, it required the cooperation of a supermajority of Congress and of states. Together with the checks and balances of the three branches of government, the Constitution aimed to make to prevent the federal government from becoming too tyrannical in the first place.

why did the founding fathers not add a stipulation for the peaceful secession of a state from the union, if they had reason to believe they weren't being properly represented by their federal government or were having their rights infringed by other states?

Refer back to my previous answer. James Madison gave a lengthy reasoning behind this during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s. Essentially, the Constitution has many, many layers that prevent such tyranny from happening: a president can veto a law, the minority states can sue in federal court and get a law declared unconstitutional, the regular elections give the states the opportunity to get a new Congress in there to repeal the law, the Amendment process makes it very difficult to change any of the fundamental laws, and the Senate's composition made it difficult to pass any law without the approval of a significant proportion of smaller and minority states.