Interestingly, the distinction was actually common among the founding generation of Americans, before even Proudhon, though Proudhon turned it into more of a fully worked out theory of property.

Benjamin Franklin, for example, wrote this:

"All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such a disposition."

(Elsewhere he clarifies that what he means by "necessary to a man" is essentially personal possessions, work tools, and shelter.)

Thomas Jefferson made a similar distinction in some of his letters. There's some speculation that Jefferson+Franklin's view that property isn't a natural right, but a social convention, is why the Declaration of Independence discusses "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", rather than the formulation, "life, liberty, and property" that was otherwise more common at the time.