In addition he didn’t address slavery until relatively late in the war; when he did it was as a (failed) tactic to flip rebelling states and excepted slave states like Maryland and Delaware that remained in the union.
The rest of your comment speaks to my point: it was a tactical effort to try to split the confederacy but as far as I can tell failed in that effort. It only had “force” in the parts of the country not controlled by the federal government.
Fortunately actual emancipation was ultimately extended throughout the union, at least in theory.
Here’s what the national archive has to say on the subject; in particular the second paragraph speaks to the limited scope of the directive: https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancip...