Correct, that's how I read it.
The emancipation was aimed at making legal citizens of all those previously ‘held as slaves’ born on American soil or brought to American soil.
That's also how I read it. I also think that extending it to "anchor babies" is a gross misapplication.
Is there any other country in the world that does that? ie children of foreign nationals become citizens of the nation governing the place they are born in?
Your question jogged my memory, regarding something that might be pertinent, here, than no one to my knowledge has looked at.
The recollection involves the relevant finding of natural-born citizenship for Marie Elg, in Perkins v. Elg. There are ample cites on FR and on the web, so I don't see the need for re-posting the decision here, but the law, in the United States in 1907, meant that she was born of two citizen parents due to derivative citizenship.
It's my understanding, that derivative citizenship was and perhaps still is the law, for wives to legally derive their citizenship from their husbands, in most of the world. There was a point not so long ago, that the United States was the only nation that did not legally assign the citizenship of the husband, to the wife.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If there was a marriage legally recognized in Kenya, between Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, she very well could have been legally Kenyan herself, under the law at that time.
Wonder how that complicates matters, if it's so. Certainly doesn't help any argument for Obama to have been a natural-born citizen, regardless of where he was born. This would mean that not only was there competing allegiance due to a nonresident alien father, his mother's citizenship could be murky as well.