>Ex post facto law has since the Enlightenment recognized as unjust and even tyrannical. Digging back across generations in search of some offense generations ago and punishing innocent parties today is at best a recipe for chaos.

That's not what's going on here at all. The idea is that property gained through unjust means originally means that the wealth derived from it is still unjustly derived, even if this unjust appropriation happened long ago when it was not deemed unjust then. You would be right if the case were if you were to be punished for the fact your ancestors owned slaves, but the issue is the benefit gained which is currently there.

>income and wealth accumulation being anywhere remotely uniform would be amazing.

Nobody is saying it would be uniform, they're saying that the situation at the moment is not due to the difference in those abilities other than perhaps brute strength in subjugation and plunder. It is difficult to imagine what the world would look like if it hadn't happened, but the distribution of wealth would not be as we see it today in any case.

>By your own reasoning, neither did the state today do anything to deserve the property that they’d seize.

The state may act on behalf of those at a comparative disadvantage, and we have an easier case for arguing they deserve something.