So, on the one hand, Lincoln argued that the southern states were still members of the Union - and yet you said that it took an Amendment to the Constitution to end slavery. So, why again did he “free slaves” in states that he claimed were still under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and yet not free those slaves in the states that he actually had a legal and the practical means to do it?
Either way you go, Lincoln did nothing with the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed no one. It was a political stunt, and that is all. It was a stunt to keep England out of the war.
In 1861-62 Congress passed the Confiscation Acts which allowed the government to seize private property without compensation if that property was being used to support the Southern rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation grew out of that. And which is why the proclamation did not apply to areas of the south that had already been liberated by Union troops.
Either way you go, Lincoln did nothing with the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed no one. It was a political stunt, and that is all. It was a stunt to keep England out of the war.
Hundreds of thousands of southern Blacks served in the Union Army. Without the Emancipation Proclamation by law those men would have had to be returned to their owners. I'd say the Proclamation was very effective...in addition to keeping the Brits from interfering.