But Americans who talk in this way seem wholly blind to the fact that under a legal system which holds private property sacred there may be equal rights, but there cannot possibly be any equal opportunities for exercising such rights.
The chance which the individual has to compete with his fellows and take a prize in the race is vitally affected by material conditions over which he has no control.

It is as if the competitor in a Marathon cross country run were denied proper nourishment or proper training, and was obliged to toe the mark against rivals who had every benefit of food and discipline.

Under such conditions he is not as badly off as if he were entirely excluded from the race.

With the aid of exceptional strength and intelligence he may overcome the odds against him and win out.

But it would be absurd to claim, because all the rivals toed the same mark, that a man's victory or defeat depended exclusively on his own efforts.
Those who have enjoyed the benefits of wealth and thorough education start with an advantage which can be overcome only in very exceptional men,--men so exceptional, in fact, that the average competitor without such benefits feels himself disqualified for the contest.
Because of the ambiguity indicated above, different people with different interests, all of them good patriotic Americans, draw very different inferences from the doctrine of equal rights.