[rockrr]

Because Lincoln didn't want to push the border states into supporting the Confederacy, his Emancipation Proclamation specifically DID NOT free any slaves in the states he legally had control over.

That's not the reason why Lincoln did what he did. He didn't apply the proclamation to states that weren't in a state of rebellion because he couldn't apply it to states that weren't in a state of rebellion.

Lincoln correctly knew that it would take an amendment to the constitution in order to end slavery nationally.

Oh, and BTW - Lincoln never didn't have legal control over every state - he only (temporarily) lost effective control due to the insurrection.

[Svartalfiar]

That's not the reason why Lincoln did what he did. He didn't apply the proclamation to states that weren't in a state of rebellion because he couldn't apply it to states that weren't in a state of rebellion.

Lincoln correctly knew that it would take an amendment to the constitution in order to end slavery nationally.

No, he didn't. Correspondence from before the war shows the main reason he didn't do it was to keep as many of the slave-holding states on the Union's side of the war. (If we lose Kentucky, we lose the war?) And for how much he walked all over the Constitution, I highly doubt that fidelity to that Constitution would be a good reason for almost anything he did.

Oh, and BTW - Lincoln never didn't have legal control over every state - he only (temporarily) lost effective control due to the insurrection.

Um, yes, he didn't. When a state secedes, it's no longer part of the Union. There is no legal bond between the two entities. The Union has to invade and subjugate the other country to force it back into the Union. Why do you think the majority of the war was fought in the South? Because if the North never invaded, it would have been a peaceful separation. Same thing when the 13 colonies declared separation - Britain had to invade and try to force them back into the fold. Only in that conflict, we won instead of losing.