Question

one effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was that it ___.
1) immediately freed Southern slaves
2) gave a moral purpose to the war
3) united the Republican Party
4) kept Great Britain out of the war

Answer 1

I don't know if any of these are really relevant. It seems to me the immediate result, and purpose, was to make it difficult for Southerners to rally resistance in those areas nominally under Union Army control, but in which Northern forces were thinly scattered (which would be most of the countryside). By telling the slaves in those areas they were free -- keep in mind the Emancipation Proclamation freed ONLY those slaves located in areas in rebellion and under Union Army control, i.e. NOT slaves in loyal states, like Maryland, nor slaves in areas not under Union Army control, such as South Carolina -- it encouraged severe disruption of the local economy, and kept Southern social structure disrupted.

Obviously it didn't immediately free Southern slaves, because the CSA considered itself a separate country, not subject to the dictates of President Lincoln. Furthermore, Lincoln himself didn't think he had the constitutional authority to free slaves except in those areas under military control because they were in a state of rebellion. In those areas, he thought his Article II powers as Commander in Chief might be stretched to allow him to free slaves as a wartime necessity, and for military purposes (the above-mentioend disruption of Southern social structure, preventing the rallying of resistance). It was generally believed it would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit slavery generally from the Federal level. (It could, of course, be banned by any given state at the state level by legislation, or at the most by amendment of a state constitution.)

I wouldn't say it gave moral purpose to the war. The war already had a profoundly moral purpose for both sides: the South fought for the right of individual states to determine their own society, including whether it would or would not allow slavery, and whether it coudl or could not leave the union if it found it uncongenial. The North fought or the indissoluble Union and disallow secession. You might say the South fought for the right to no-fault divorce, and the North fought for the right of the innocent spouse not to have a dviroce forced upon her.

It's a gross mischararacterization to say the South fought for slavery and the North to abolish it. Most Southerners did not own slaves, and many did not generally approve of slavery. However, they were even more strongly against being told what to do by people from out of state. Few Northerners were outright abolitionists, although many had a distaste for slavery, but they also were damned if they would allow a small minority i the South to dictate terms to the entire country, particularly as it affected development in the West.

I don't think it would serve to united the Republican Party. In 1862, the major dissenssion from the Lincoln line were those Republicans who did not support the war to regain the South, who felt that some kind of peaceful resolution of the conflict was better than setting brother against brother, and risking foreign intervention. In other words, the dissenters thought that Lincoln had already taken on too much authority and responsibility himself, and his freeing the slaves by declaration would have only further alienated them. To be sure, it might have brought him support from the extreme abolitionist wing, but I don't know if their numbers were high enough for that to balance the loss of support in the middle.

It also seems a little unlikely to be keeping Great Britain out of the war. Britain oppposed slavery, certainly, and this was one of the major reasons it hesitated to support the South. But the major issue for Great Britain at the time was access to Southern raw materials, particularly cotton, which had become an important feedstock for the newly industrialized British textile industry. Britain was willing to tolerate either a free CSA or a re-united USA -- but the IMPORTANT thing would be to have the war, and its disruption in commerce, over quickly. If the war dragged on, it became more likely that Great Britain might intervene.

This, indeed, was the hope of the South -- that they could stave off the North long enough to convince England it would serve her commerical interest to intervene on the side of the South, to bring the war to a rapid close. They probably underestimated how distasteful the institution of slavery was to the English. As it turned out, the Brits were willing to wait at least two yeas, and by then Grant had taken Vicksburg and the victory of the North began to seem inevitable. The fact that it took a further two years probably surprised a lot of people, but only deluded people doubted the final conclusion.