Second, that deflationary period was caused by a huge increase in productivity... it is known as "the second industrial revolution", and global production efficiency took off during that period.
Third, the fact that there was only 4% actually shows that growth was artificially constrained by a limited money supply; productive efficiency increased so much, we should have had better growth than we did. We would have, if we were able to grow the money supply with the economy.
In fact, the only thing that kept the money supply from completely stopping economic growth is that there actually WAS a huge increase in the money supply caused by massive gold and silver mining.
Your third point also sounds like story-telling, or fitting a story to the evidence. Does that mean it is the only possible explanation for what occurred? If not, how can we determine which explanation is correct?
I guess my point is that time period is clearly an outlier in a number of ways, which is why it is one of the only examples of high growth + deflation periods in history... it doesn't change the conclusion that you should aim for a small amount of inflation if you want economic growth. A single counter-example doesn't change the conclusion; just because we know there are people who have won huge jackpots in the lottery doesn't mean we stop suggesting saving money for retirement.