The reason why you don't find many pictures of Black Confederates soldiers is because you don't find many pictures of Confederates soldiers at all. Photography was an expensive business in 1860. The lack of money in the south and the expense of the chemical and the ability to obtain the chemicals limited the Southern perspective in photographs. Photography's role in 1860 wasn't to document the War. It was to sell the pictures and make a profit. Many photograph plates, when they didn't sell, were destroyed by the photographer or otherwise thrown away.
The Confederate Army was far from the "racist" that modern "history" would have you believe. Where did that idea come from?
Blacks in the south were a natural part of the southern landscape and culture. A part of everyday living. In my limited studies I have found that black southerners were a very vital and natural part of the Confederate Army. Besides filling vital support roles, such as labor, cooks, stretcher bearers, hospital stewards and transportation, they were used in many other military functionary role, as drummers and even as soldiers and in one known case even a flagbearer. There is that very well known report of Stonewall Jackson column in Fredrick, Maryland in September, 1862 in which 3,000 blacks in uniforms were reported in his column. I don't know that anyone has every thought of it, but 3,000 people is a lot of people to be hauling around with you on an "invasion" just to do your laundry. There are many other reports in the Official Records of armed blacks serving on picket duty with white confederate soldiers. They also were quite good as spies.
But you know all of this George, being a southron yourself.
In the 24th Texas Cavalry dismounted for example, there were no less than 6 different ethinic groups in that one regiment. Hispanic Americans, Mexican Nationals, African Americans, both slave and free, Texas Cowboys fighting beside American Indians in the same company, and even a couple of Chinese Nationals. Beside that, there were the religions that were repersented, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Baptists aad whatever the Indians believed. And remember we are talking about a single regiment of 700 men.
So who is the true bigot and racist here. The army that incorperated whites and blacks together into the same Units, even thought their may have had their seperate "stations" in that regiment? Or the Army that seperated the blacks into their respective regiments and placed white officers in Command over them and then sent those units into battle ahead of the all white regiments as cannon fodder to empty the Confederates cartridge boxes?
Contrary to the popular mythology, the Black in the south, and in the southern Army had a "dollar and cents" commercial value. He wasn't worthless. That "Commercial Value" gave the black in the south a unique position that he enjoyed nowhere else in the United States. In some cases the Black man was too valuable to waste or lose. For example the use of Irish Immigrants to clean the Bayous of Louisiana, because the slaves were too valuable to lose to the alligators and swamp fever. The Irishman as paided wages labor were far cheaper, the plantation owner had no investment in him, and he was no lose if an alligator or the fever got him. The same thinking applied to the Southern slave as a front line soldier exposed to the dangers of warfare. But some slaves were still there anyway.
In the Northern army the black had no such value whatsoever. He was just someone who could stop a bullet as good as a white man. And was often used in 1864 to stop that bullet instead of the white man. We may think of him having a "human value" in todays terms. But his having that "Human Value" wasn't the case in either the North, or the South in 1860, except inside the southern plantation house, or as the Northern family servant.