No it did not. It emancipated zero. He had no jurisdiction in the South because the South had severed ties with the Union. It was another country. Why didn't he also free the slaves held by the Yankees in the north?
I already answered your second question in my post #7 - emancipation required an amendment to the Constitution.
And yes, the Emancipation Proclamation both symbolically and effectively freed slaves in the rebellious states.
If you had any understanding of the EP, or the Constitution, you would not be asking that question.
1. The Union did not recognize the South as another country. It saw them only as an illegal insurrection.
2. During an insurrection, the government has the right to seize property of insurrectionists that is used to further the insurrection.
3. Under the Constitution, slaves were legally regarded as property. Therefore, the government had the right to take that property and dispose of it as they saw fit. The EP directed the military to free that slave property.
4. The EP could not legally seize property in areas of the country that were not in a state of insurrection and were under the jurisdiction of US Courts. That would have been in the loyal border states of MO, KY, MD, & DL, as well in counties in rebellious states that were already returned to Union control.