My position is that the historical fact is that after the collapes of the Confederate army, under United States law slavery still existed. These displaced persons/property (contriband) still needed to be addressed as to their legal status. Then the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves then held in the 6 nothern states and the parts of the south which had been occupied by the Union army prior to January 1st 1863, was passed and that defined that proplem.
But they were still second class persons not having the right to vote the same as women of the period and treated in like manner not having the right to own property. then the 14th and 15th amendments were passed to give them "equal rights" and thus making them "freedmen". Slaves held in the north were never 'contriband'.
So in my estimation calling the ex-slaves in the south "freedmen" before 1866, is a misuse of terms and in effects puts the 'cart before the horse' simply because we are today looking back in hindsight and seeing the results of these events and not the actual facts of the times. They were no longer 'contriband' legally after the 13th Amendment, the sames as slaves in the north were no longer slaves. Yes the 'contriband' were called 'freedmen' before 1866.
But what was the conditions of that freedom? And freedom from whom and what?