Sadly, there's a large number of people who've dedicated themselves to reading hidden motivations behind words. For example, when I foolishly used the term State's Rights, I was accused by progressives of being a racist using a secret code word for segregation.
I realized later that "State's Rights" is a silly term. States don't have rights, they have powers. Conservatives would be wise to strike this word from their vocabulary.
Apparently, the some folks in history have associated the term "property rights" with slavery.
It is likely that some slave holders made pathetic appeals to property rights to defend the slave ownership.
Any such appeal is paradoxical and pathetic because slave ownership denies property rights to the slave.
Intellectuals of the 1800s reveled in paradox.
Intellectuals defending slavery used the term "state's rights" in a bad argument that state's had a right to deny a fundamental human right to the slaves.
Fundamental rights should not be in conflict. So clearly the flawed term state's rights is the source of the conflict.
The intellectuals of the modern era (ie, the 19th and early 20th century) held a strange belief that one could find hidden meanings in paradox. They went hog-wild with the term rights ... and messed up a great deal of terminology and logic.
People trying to defend liberty need to be aware of all the little traps in our modern language and need to weed out misused reference to rights (like "State's Rights" in order to defend fundamental rights like property rights.)
The claim that states have rights creates conflicts between individual rights and state's rights. Therefore, the concept is corrupt.
At the heart of the property rights debate is the assumption that one cannot deny property rights to another. Therefore, the concept of property rights is diametrically opposed to the ideas of slavery and segregation.