We know he lied. Secessionists were killing free-staters in Kansas so we know that the secessionists were indeed thugs. Plus anyone that's wants to secede for slavery is a thug by definition anyway.
That's all beside the point. Unionists did participate.
But most were threatened to not participate.
Unionists also participated in the public vote that ratified their actions, by a landslide.
Too late. That's after the coup. Saddam won by landslides also.
It does not state that they were 'discouraged' from the vote. It does not cite any specifics of 'discouragement' of unionists at the convention.
That's after the coup so it doesn't matter. In this country we elect people through a process. That process was scrapped by the thugs. Anything after that is lawlessness as Governer Houston observed.
So now secessionists from Kansas were coming into Texas and coercing Unionists not to participate in the conventions? I'll need a link on that one.
But most were threatened to not participate.
Now it's most? The only reference you've provided is a synopsis with no materials sourced. And your reference does not support that most were coerced into non-partitipation. It mentions it in passing along with the fact that many refused to participate in what they saw was an illegal act (much as Patrick Henry had done 80 years before during the Constitutional Convention).
Non-participants get screwed in any system of government. It's what the 'public good' is all about.
Too late. That's after the coup
No, in fact your supposed coup could not have taken effect until after the vote. Much like Ms Stewart, you seem to have a problem arranging dates in order.