“On the contrary, what it meant was that slaves who fled their owners and/or wound up in territory that had been liberated from the Confederate forces could not be returned to their masters as the law required because, wait for it, they weren’t slaves anymore.”
It took an independent observer from afar to place the Emancipation Proclamation, and to some extent the entire debate over northern war aims, into perspective.
The London Spectator publication said it best about federal policy: “The Government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict . . . the principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Once can excuse the London Spectator's lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution, but I'm frequently puzzled by the similar lack of understanding on the part of the Confederate supporters. But, given the lack of respect that the Davis government had for their own constitution, maybe it's no that hard to understand.