I pointed you to General Order #14, but you completely ignored the part about conferring on the slave the "rights of a freedman", as follows:
General Order 14, Section IV
... No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman, and which will be filed with the superintendent...
What does that mean "...coferring as far as he may"? If the slave was granted freedom then why not say it? Why refer to him as a slave further down in the paragraph? Constitutionally the confederate congress could not pass a law emancipating slaves, and the legislation makes it clear that they were not doing so. Constitutionally none of the southern legislatures that I am aware of had the authority to pass laws of emancipation. This section you so proudly wave does not come out and say it frees slaves that served. Why was it so hard for someone, anyone down there to come out and free someone?