Well, you can say that, but I myself am not inclined to think to highly of your argument, either.
Seeing as the article being cited, and the ensuing discussion absolutely was about ending slavery and Jim Crow, I feel that the ‘public school’ version of the Civil War is all that is appropriate. Unless you feel there are other facets which are relevant other than the fact that Lincoln’s Federal government was the instrument used to abolish the practice of slavery in States which had chosen not to conform to this (surely libertarian) idea?
What, exactly, is that but the use of force to defend liberty? Presumably this was unnecessary because the pragmatism of losing out in trade would have surely eventually won over the minds of the Southern owners who were getting rich from owning slaves?
But, seeing as we’re coming back to seriousness, if the loss of profts to private owners who choose to discriminate were such a potent device for ending the problem, why, in 80 years of experiment did nothing change? You can blame Jim Crow only so far, because after all, they could have been repealed any time the profit-motivated traders wanted.
What was the hold up?