what was the emancipation proclamation unable to accomplish?

Answer 1

The Emancipation Proclamation had little immediate impact; it freed slaves only in the Confederate states, while leaving slavery intact in the border states. And, moreover, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

It was, therefore, UNABLE TO FREE SLAVES IN THE SOUTH until there was complete military victory.

Please reference:
http://thomaslegion.net/war.html

Answer 2

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[1] The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect[2] in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).[3] In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves[2][3] were freed at once on January 1, 1863. Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census[4]) were freed by July 1865. Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.

Answer 3

The emancipation was unable to accomplish the task of freeing the slaves until after the Civil War because the Southerners did not follow the Emancipation and it was only supposed to release the slaves south of the Mason-Dixon line (or all of the slaves in the South) if you're curious to know why he didn't free the slaves in the north it's because of the border states that still had slaves that he didn't want to lose. Oh and the emancipation proclamation was written right after the bloodiest battle on American soil :Antietam.

Answer 4

Short answer -- it could not free slaves in territory NOT in rebellion at the time of the EP

Thus sallisaw (or whatever he changes his name to by the time you read this answer!) is mistaken --in fact, it's almost backward! His mistake is a common misrepresentation, of more likely just a misunderstanding, of what the EP actually did or was ever intended to do

So let's be clear.

First, the Proclamation did indeed accomplish the freeing of slaves BEFORE "complete military victory". In fact, it began by establishing the freedom of any slave who had fled behind Union lines (and there were many)... and encouraged others to do the same. The language of the Proclamation is quite explicit on this point

Second, with every Union advance more slaves were freed, so most of the emancipating had been done BEFORE the war's end. (The final formal end came when news reached Texas in June of 1865. That day henceforward became a holiday - "Juneteenth")

Of course there are MANY things such a Proclamation could not accomplish, such as change the racist attitudes in the country (whether North or South) . BUT even on this point it had some effect! The fact that at the same time freed blacks were admitted into the Union military where many served GALLANTLY caused many to take a new view of them, including even an openness to extending not just freedom but even the franchise to those who risked themselves thus.

But I'll assume you mean something more like this. What the EP could NOT do was free slaves in territory that was NOT in rebellion at the time of the Proclamation.

Why? Not because Lincoln didn't desire this -- indeed

a) he had been pleading with the legislatures of states like Maryland to accept compensated gradual emancipation, which they finally did in 1864.
b) in the preliminary EP itself he specifically notified Congress of his intent to make provisions for funds for just such a program for loyal states willing to undertake it
c) he subsequently worked hard to line up support for the 13th amendment to end slavery THROUGHOUT the country.

In fact, it is quite evident that the step taken in the EP did much to ENABLE these changes. So you might even argue that the EP, at least indirectly DID end up freeing ALL slaves, both North and South.

No, the key limitation had nothing to do with the desire to end slavery. Rather, Lincoln was being careful to act within the powers granted him under the Constitution. He COULD not, by his own action, free slaves in those areas not in rebellion (nor could he have carried it off politically in any case!) The ONLY basis for his action in freeing Southern slaves was his "war powers" -- that is, his freedom to use every possible method to put down an insurrection, including the attacking or taking of anything (or anyone!) being used to support that insurrection. In the words of the EP, he did it "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion"

(BTW, the notion that slaves might eventually be freed by just such a presidential action had been suggested more than 20 years earlier by John Quincy Adams.)

This too is very clear within the document itself, for the EP is not a high flying piece of rhetoric but a very carefully worded LEGAL document. Why? Because Lincoln fully expected it to be challenged in court - indeed before the Supreme Court that had often opposed him, and was still presided over by Roger Taney (who wrote the "Dred Scott decision" in 1857).
__________________

The EP is not all that long. I invite you to read through both the "preliminary" version (of Sept 22, 1862, when he announced what he WOULD do 100 days later) and the final version of Jan 1, 1863.
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/library/features/ep/
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html

Answer 5

too many people interested in having slaves, and Slaves on the other side did not have to aportunities tyo survive being free

Answer 6

What are you talking about? I don't get the question.

Answer 7

equality