There is no question that the first and the last versions of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure. And, it had no impact on the foreign policies of either England or France. Both nations had already recognized the Confederacy as a "de-facto" state under international law. The Confederacy met the standards of that connotation because it had a standing army, a constitution, and a fully operative central government. Additionally the US had "blockaded" the Southern ports. The blockade in itself was a measure that indicated the South was a foreign organization.England continued to build warships and supply weapons to the South throughout the war. The notion that the UK did not want to support a slave nation cannot be true inasmuch as they traded for Southern cotton before the war and during it. If the UK was on a normal relations with the United States in 1860, and it was, then it was recognizing the US as a slave nation. Public opinion did not figure into the Crown's foreign policies. To use an exaggeration to make a point, the UK would have assisted the US in the war to quickly continue the importation of cotton, instead of searching elsewhere such as Egypt for a cotton supply.

France gave loans to the South after the war began and, it was no friend of the United States as how could it explain the continuing formation of a puppet state in Mexico?

With that said, the Emancipation Proclamation was for the US's internal construction. It helped lessen the Radical wing of the Republican Party criticisms of the Lincoln administration but in no way altered the Radicals' view that President Lincoln was running the war as they believed it should be run.

With regards to the Battle of Antietam, there is another flaw in the logic of Lincoln's decision to release the Proclamation after a "victory", or even a "decisive victory".

When a small "nation" can invade the Union and fight a major battle in the Union's own territory, and be allowed to "escape", to fight again is not an overwhelming victory at all. On the other hand If, the North had invaded the South and won a decisive battle, destroying a major Confederate army on its own turf, then the required victory measure would have been correct. Instead, the reverse could well have taken place.

With all that said, President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation can now be defined as a "war measure".

President Lincoln did not expect the South to comply with the measures of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was not an ultimatum at all. Lincoln knew this because he religiously tried to convince the slave holding border states to give up slavery via the most generous terms. Payment to the slave owners and a gradual end to slavery over a long as two generations. If the border states were not going to give up their slaves, then neither were the Southern states.

With that in mind, the term of war measure, in reality was a reformulation of war aims that implied a change in Lincoln's strategy. President Lincoln, by July of 1862 had abandoned all hope that a series of quick and impressive victories would demonstrate and demoralize the South into negotiations with the North. At that point, perhaps the ultimatum of a gradual abolishment of slavery and compensation would not only save thousands of lives, but keep the United States strong by not having a huge part of its economy wrecked in a long war. He gave up that hope and now believed that a war of subjugation towards the South was the only method to end the rebellion.

Lincoln was not a cruel leader, the reformulation, he hoped would also help end the war quickly. The problem would turn out to be that the military requirements to end the war were not met. This was due to the ineptitude of the Union's war making power, and the unexpected resistance of the Southern armies and leaders.

The Emancipation Proclamation is often viewed as a Moral Repudiation of the institution of slavery. While in reality, it did not abolish slavery in the United States, it is nonetheless seen as adding abolition as a formal goal to the North's side in the US Civil War.

In effect, it is seen as a formal promise by the President of the United States to abolish slavery as soon as the Civil War was over. While the practical impact of the Proclamation itself inside the U.S. was very limited, it had an immense political impact on the course of the Civil War. In effect, the Emancipation Proclamation made European intervention on the side of the South a political impossibility. By proclaiming that the North was now fighting to abolish slavery, that now meant that the South was de facto fighting for slavery. As all major European powers had abolished slavery prior to the 1860s, their own public opinion was strongly against slavery. Thus, no European government would have been able to survive the outcry from their citizenry if they were seen to support slavery. And since the South now appeared to support slavery, no official support could every be forthcoming for the South.

This was decisive for the outcome of the Civil War. For, without access to European goods (and, in particular, assistance with breaking the Union blockage of Southern ports), the South would lose. It had neither the industrial capacity nor the finances to fight an extended war against the richer and highly industrial North. The EP also provided a huge boost to Northern morale, removing the only real other chance for a Southern victory (i.e. that the Northern public opinion would sag so much as to force a settlement before the North's industrial might could crush the South).

Today, the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation are seen in several ways: firstly, in the preservation of the Union as it now stands, and not a divided country. Secondly, it was the driving force between several major legal equality movements, primarily the 13, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the 1960s Civil Rights Act (and movement as a whole). Furthermore, the Emancipation Proclamation is seen as adding a fundamental value to the American psyche: that all persons should be seen as equal, and that all Americans should aspire to treating each other with respect and dignity, regardless of race.

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 ofLouisiana, 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.

This is copied and pasted off of Wikipedia. I take no credit for the answer.

The first answer to my edit is based on sound reasoning. This edit will supplement what has already been written.

The Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln was a strategic move to serve the his main purpose for fighting the Civil War. Lincoln always believed that the Federal Government had no right, under the US Constitution to outlaw slavery. He tried to assure the South before he took office that he had no intention to abolish slavery where it already existed. As history has shown us, this made no impact on the leaders of the South. They were concerned about Lincoln's motives and they were concerned that the Southern "slave" States would eventually be a huge minority of States that had legal slaves.

To fully gauge the impact, the later results, and reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation the following information is important:

A. In 1865 Lincoln ratified the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution which outlawed slavery;

B. Many freed slaves and the peoples of Afro-American society would continue to experience limited freedoms & prejudice. Many of these issues took almost 100 years to be resolved;

C. Based on Lincoln's earlier stated ideas regarding slavery, the emancipation of slaves was not the first reason that Lincoln engaged the Union in the Civil War. In fact, he even saw it as a potential threat to the goal of keeping the Union unified. (note. as an aside, the concept of manifest destiny, already in the minds of many leaders, would be thwarted by the secession. )

D. In truth, Lincoln was a pragmatist and a man of moderation. No one, who could see that over 600,000 men would be killed, that the War would take over 4 years to settle, added to the massive destruction, and bitter ed divisiveness over decades, could have wanted such a war. Somehow, someway, the slavery issue would have had to be solved without the costs of this Civil War.

E. To the horror of the Abolitionists, it would become clear that abolishing slavery was not why the Union could field large armies of young men whose call to duty was to save the Union. Most Northerners were against slavery. There is no doubt about that, however they were not going to war, a war that would destroy so many families, to end slavery.

F. Lincoln believed that turning the war into an abolitionist crusade, might result in North en Democrats & border State Unionists to withdraw their support.

G. And, once again, Lincoln did not believe he had any authority to free anyone's "slaves". He even hoped that if the South thought that a compromise of sorts could be worked out, the South would return to the Union. Lincoln ignored critics would found it absurd that the South would give in if the North had the possibility of making the reunified Union, slave free. The critics would have to ignore the fact that prior to and during the upcoming war, the Federal Capital itself had legal slavery.

H. During the early stages of the War, Union generals wielded their military powers to undermine slavery. Lincoln reversed their actions of freeing slaves in some Territories, and even removed these generals.

I. The War began in April 1861, and the fighting continued with both sides losing men. With the power and huge military advantages of the Union, this was not expected in most quarters of the North. Lincoln saw the problems a longer than expected war would bring.

J. In defiance of his own ideas, the pragmatic side of Lincoln knew he needed another reason to continue the war. He hoped that adding a popular, moral attachment to the war might prove to be a favorable tactic. His hope was that an emancipation would encourage a deeper commitment to victory and he had nothing to lose except his own integrity. He could place that aside if emancipation could help end the War ( it didn't in real terms and the idea that the despotic and quasi democratic Europeans would side with the United States & not recognize the Confederacy was a "hope". (More on this later. )

K. Lincoln also hoped that emancipation would generate international support and deny the Confederacy of possible European allies. It was reasoned that no external power would want to be allied with a nation fighting for Slavery. Freeing the slaves would hurt the Southern economy and thus weaken its military strength. Also, Lincoln saw a new source of manpower, the freed slaves, joining the military.

L. The War dragged on and as the Summer of 1862 was upon the nation, Lincoln decided to issue the emancipation as an act of justice and a military edict to help end the War. As now the pragmatic politician, the timing of such an announcement was of most importance At all costs the emancipation could not appear as a desperate measure. It might have, as the Union had suffered a number of defeats against a "put together at the last moment army of the South".

He announced it to his cabinet in July, 1862. Luckily when the horrible battle of Antietam was over in September & the South withdrew from Maryland, this was the chance as Lee's retreat, if you will, could be seen as a Northern victory. In military terms it was a tactical draw. When an attacking army loses less men than the defenders, it's the reverse of a natural battle.

If it was a Union victory, & McClellan was praised for pressing the attack on Lee's army, which McClellan did, it did not save his job. George B. McClellan lost his job as leader of the Army of the Potomac on November 3, 1862.

M. Antietam is said by some historians as the end of the Confederacy's bid for recognition from Europe. In my view, European governments had no intention of recognizing the Confederacy. They had little to gain. Many astute European statesman and military men saw the potential of the United States. Many saw it as a rival "power to be". However, it was not lost on them that a successful

new group of "Americans" could result in "two new powers to be".

The Europeans had outlawed slavery long before the US Civil War. That's true enough, but they did not outlaw enslaving entire populations in their colonial empires. France "engineered" the construction of The Suez Canal as example with the use of "forced labor" in 1869. At any given point in time, 30,000 laborers by force were involved in the construction. Thousands of them died.

Most political scientists mark 1928 as the year Great Britain attained the same civil rights status as the United States.

N. On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. He took great care to make it clear that it was an executive order allowed to him as the Commander in Chief under the Constitution. Because of that, the proclamation allowed for the liberation of slaves only in areas that were in rebellion and thus under martial law. Bottom line was that slaves were liberated in areas where the Federal Government had no power.

Lee's retreat out of Maryland ( a Union slave State ) prompted Lincoln to call for the surrender of the Confederacy and for its States to rejoin the Union by December 31, 1862. If that didn't happen then their slaves would be declared free men. Based on the example of Maryland, it needs to be again said that Lincoln, personally against slavery, was not as President implacable opposed to slavery; his avowed purpose was always to preserve the Union no matter it took to do so. So whether by preserving slavery, destroying it, or by keeping it in some States and not in others, the Union had to be preserved.

O. Lincoln's Final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 specifically listed those areas where slaves were to be free. Slave owners who were loyal to the Union were exempt and allowed to keep their slaves. Based on the 1860 census, this meant that over 800,000 slaves or 21% of slaveswere to remain in bondage. The "keep Europe out " plan was ridiculous in that the Union could have slaves but the areas not within Union control were not.

P. The Proclamation was almost as controversial as the suspension of US Civil Rights. It caused political disputes in the North and among the rank and file of the US Army. It was early on that Lincoln in the interest of national security had suspended civil liberties in the Union. The suspension of habeas corpus resulted in the summary arrests which imprisoned thousands of Federal citizens.

Some were forced to take loyalty oaths and simple economic rights were also suspended. Some of the Federal "activities" were issues not settled until after the War.

In tact below is the initial answer which has enough good information worth keeping.

He wanted to take control of the rebellion and after the battle of Antietam, where the north won, he thought it was a good move to get re-elected. Also, by making that proclamation he made the war about slavery first and foremost. This ensured that Britain and France would not enter the war and aid the South....the people of Britain and France could not support a cause that supported slavery.
To turn it into a war on slavery.

He was hoping this would raise Northern morale (which it didn't) and keep the British from helping the Confederates (which it did). <--- Little unjustifed, because of the rebelling slaves in the States that Lincoln had put in both the preliminary document of the Proclamation followed by the actual one.

Lincoln wanted to STOP the Civil War, therefore stop the Northern States and Southern states fighting. He didn't want a war against slavery, he wanted it abolished. When Lincoln signed the paper, he stated, "If my name ever goes into history, it will be because of this act." His act meant that the rebellion would stop and war would end.

But this Proclamation resulted in his assassination. Therefore, John Wilkes Booth shooting him at that play he attended.

I see for that the Emancipation Proclamation, was a good delcaration. If you think about it, Abraham Lincoln's legacy is because he did something, that no one at that time would believe possible.

He is one of the greatest Presidents of the United States of America. Not all he did was bad, more so heroic.

The entire text can be seen at the related link below.

It was a set of two executive orders, issued by President Lincoln, which freed the slaves in the rebel states and guaranteed the enforcement of their emancipation. It only applied to slaves in rebel-held areas. The passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments after the war would permanently end slavery in America. The proclamation was effective in making sure that England and France would not support the south (and look pro-slavery), and in helping bankrupt rich southern landowners.
The Proclamation was the answer to Lincoln's growing fear that Britain would grant recognition to the Confederacy, in the light of Lee's triumphant campaign in Virginia, and send military aid.

By turning the war into an official crusade against slavery, he made it ethically impossible for free nations abroad to help the South, as it would make them look pro-slavery.

FREED SOUTHERN SLAVES

Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation (first announcing it on Sept. 22, 1862, and putting it into effect on January 1, 1863), declaring slaves free in all areas then in rebellion against the Union. It authorized the Union armed forces to carry this into effect as they took control of areas of the Confederacy. When they received fleeing slaves, they were no longer to return them to their masters. The proclamation freed 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the USA. The Proclamation also authorized the Union armies to recruit these freed slaves to fight. A large number joined the Union Army and made a major contribution to the war effort during the final two years of the war.

A claim that it "freed no one" (see below) is inaccurate. Yes, it only did so as the Union Army was able to move forward. But that is the same for any law or proclamation --it is a 'dead letter' until backed up by power (sometimes armed force). And this proclamation specifically provided for its own enforcement. In fact, from 1863 through mid-1865 (when on June 19 the order was announced in Texas), the Proclamation was the main instrument by which slaves in the South were actually freed.

Note that Lincoln took this step under his "war powers" as Commander-in-chief. He had no general authority under the Constitution to free slaves elsewhere (especially in the border states that had remained loyal to the Union). The criticism of his not freeing slaves in the Union misses this point - the Proclamation could not free these slaves, no matter how much Lincoln might have wanted to.

PART OF LARGER PLAN TO FREE ALL SLAVES

Critics also ignore the fact that Lincoln & Congress were, even before the Emancipation Proclamation working on Constitutional methods to end slavery throughout the nation. Lincoln, already in 1861, had begun to urge border Union slave states to vote an end to slavery themselves (which some eventually did). His original proposal was "compensated emancipation", providing financial help to states that emancipated their slaves. In fact, Lincoln and Congress had already used this method in April 1862 to free slaves in Washington DC (the one place they had the Constitutional authority to do so!)

Lincoln and the Republicans also worked on a method to free all slaves in the Union, as well as to assure that those freed under the Emancipation Proclamation remained free after the war ended (since a court challenge could conceivably reinstate slavery). This was accomplished by means of the 13th amendment to the Constitution in 1865.

FOREIGN RELATIONS

The Proclamation was not, at first, highly regarded overseas. Britain was not impressed by it, and stayed its hand at recognizing the Confederacy not so much because of the Proclamation, but because the victory at Antietam suggested a Southern victory was not a certainty. The French government did not really care about the slavery issue or 'bad press', but preferred to recognize the South only after Britain did.

DOMESTIC POLITICS

One other effect - in the short term, as Lincoln expected, the Proclamation cost him and his party at home. It contributed to a number of key losses in the 1862 elections. This makes it all the more remarkable that Lincoln chose to announce the plan in September, rather than waiting until after those elections.

Claim that it had no real effect :

The Emancipation Proclamation merely announced Lincoln's intention to free slaves that it had no power to free. No slaves were freed (not even on paper) until the actual Executive Order was signed over three months later. Even then, it specifically exempted the Slave States that had not seceded (like Kentucky and Maryland). It also specifically exempted any State that had not seceded or that had been captured by Union troops and any county that had been captured by Union troops. In other words, slavery REMAINED LEGAL in all Slave States and Slave Counties that were under Union control. The only places where slavery became illegal was in those States and Counties that didn't recognize the authority of the US government anyway. So, in actual effect, the Emancipation Proclamation freed exactly zero slaves.

Though as the North conquered more territory in the South, slavery immediately became illegal in the new States and Counties conquered. But it was the Union Army, not the Emancipation Proclamation, that conquered those States and Counties.

(Some argue that some slaves in already-Union-controlled areas were freed immediately upon the issuance of the executive order, and the estimate of the number of slaves thus freed varies between 20,000 and 50,000. If this is, in fact, the case, then the executive order was, in fact, in direct opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation, which exempted all states or parts of states under Union control. So, once again, the Emancipation Proclamation itself freed no one.)

The Emancipation Proclamation, in itself, was totally worthless. Moreover, it was nothing more than a political stunt and one of the most dishonest political acts of American history. It was bait to get the States in Rebellion to rejoin the Union, under the promise that they would be allowed to keep their slaves. It even provided a means by which States in rebellion could prove that they were no longer in rebellion (election of representation of the State in the US Congress was "deemed conclusive evidence"). Yet, Lincoln never intended to let any Southern States keep their slaves. It was a classic "bait and switch". Of course, none of the Southern States fell for it.