I don't think I've ever seen a historian of the Civil War who gave Mises a thought, to be honest. Nor a reason why they ought to. Strict economic determinism, which seems to be Mises' concern and whether Marxist or capitalistic, was held in quite poor esteem within the field by the early Fifties. I can't say that no one has ever cited him for anything, but his ideas play no significant role in our understanding of the war's origins, now or then. The great shift of midcentury had a lot more to do with the Second World War rehabilitating the idea that war might actually be over ideas and the rise of the Civil Rights Movement helping convince some white historians for the first time in nearly a century that the state of black Americans might be something of genuine interest rather than a kind of weird fetish or dishonest pose to hide more venal motives on the part of white politicians.

That said, historians do sometimes distinguish between the cause of secession and the cause of the war. This is important on technical grounds, mostly. If you say the war is over slavery, which it was, it implies that one side is avowedly proslavery (which it was) and that the other was avowedly antislavery to similar degree (which it was not). Most Northern whites are willing to embark upon a Civil War to preserve democracy for white men, not because they want to free the enslaved. It takes a long, difficult war to bring a majority around to reluctantly accepting that as a necessary condition of victory.

That's not a trivial distinction, but also one that isn't relevant in most casual contexts. When people ask about the cause of the civil war, they usually mean "what did the Confederacy fight for?" because we understand that people trying to leave a country and take the land with them are going to face forcible resistance unless they do a whole lot of work beforehand to arrange a mutually agreeable split.

So where does that leave us? The cause of secession is not literally identical to the cause of the war because both parties don't have symmetrical and opposed agendas vis-a-vis slavery. But that's talking around the main point: The standard formulation is that slavery is the cause of secession and secession is the cause of war. Absent slavery there is no secession and therefore no war. Slavery, and slavery alone, united almost the whole South in its commitment to rebellion to save the institution from the potential threat of a hostile administration in Washington. There's nothing else that was going to drive that particular set of states to rebel. It's literally what makes the South the South, both in the estimation of the whites of the era and historians across a wide variety of historiographic approaches, and positions, in the century and a half decades since it was abolished.