"Most soldiers today who have "fought" for their country, never fire a shot at the enemy, but they support the ones who do. Without that support, there is no Army, no war effort, no victory, and we recognize them as being soldiers without a thought to the contrary. Why should it be any different with the Black men who filled those rolls in the southern army 150 years ago? Even if they dont appear on the 'official roll'."

I guess that's the distinction. The modern soldiers you refer to are just that: regularly enrolled, equipped, trained and paid soldiers, and we recognize them as such. Never firing a shot in anger is irrelevant to that status.

Black men and women may have helped support the Southern war effort by their labor (willing or not), but they get a backdoor definition as soldiers only if you redefine the word. The caterer at the Fort Bragg PX isn't a soldier even though his work demonstrably supports the war effort.