Well, the EP (as the cool history junkies call it) was a very brillant political manuever, but it was the 13th Amendment that effectively freed the slaves.

What does it say about the concept of natural rights that slaves were "freed" by either Lincoln or the Emancipation Proclamation?

That they can be violated, and that they have no effect unless they are respected or enforced.

I'm a big fan of Lincoln, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a smart move, but I don't think it freed any slaves as it only purported to be effective where Lincoln's writ carried no force.

It probably did free some slaves. If the text was followed, then the slaves in those states should have been free once the U.S. won the war. It was not long after that, though, that the 13th Amendment was ratified.

"Haven't you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?"
"I don't listen to Hip-Hop."

Who passed the 13th Amendment? Lincoln. Did the EP free slaves? Yes. Hundreds of thousands of them. Why did Lincoln duplicate his efforts? His understanding of his powers were that the EP could be done only under his War Powers. He worried that those powers would expire when the war was over.

to add on to Anomyous's post, the EP only freed slaves within the states that were in rebellion; i.e. the Confederates. The states that stayed with the Union, like West Virginia and Maryland, as well as the territories weren't subject to this document.

Doug covered that.

Did Lincoln have a *Constitutional* right to issue the EP?

best,
Dale