In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands, without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal and the equal of all others.
Chief-Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family; but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites.

Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all by the other fact that they did not at once or ever afterwards actually place all white people on an equality with one another.

And this is the staple argument of both the Chief-Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration.
I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men; but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects.

They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity.

They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant.