[Non-Sequitur]

Both. Northern opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories and newly formed states was regarded as interference with the southerners' property rights and freedom of movement. But the media eliminate the part about state's rights.

So then it was really about individual property rights rather than state's rights. And while the Constitution does have some protections against government seizing your property, it does not guarantee you the right to take your property wherever you choose.

[Genoa]

So then it was really about individual property rights rather than state's rights. And while the Constitution does have some protections against government seizing your property, it does not guarantee you the right to take your property wherever you choose.

I would say yes, state's rights per se had relatively little to do with it, since only a small radical element in the North wanted to interfere with the domestic institutions of the southern states. It was mostly about competing political and economic interests that battled over differing visions about policy for westward expansion.