It is plain silly to argue that if 1000 blacks fought for the Confederacy it is the same as 100,000 black in grey? That is the argument you make when you say "there were some blacks fighting". Are you saying it was the policy in Richmond to have the slaves fight? If that is the case, where were they? Are you trying to imply Richmond always wanted to arm the slaves to fight but the slaves themselves simply refused ?
The population of blacks made up almost half the population of the South. White draftees were reaching into very young teens and old men while a population of strong healthy black males of fighting age were left out. Even the northern army saw that the South was running out of men, that is why they stopped POW exchanges for the most part. Exchanges of POWs help replenish the Southern armies. Refusal to exchange POWs by the North cost the South precious manpower, refusal to exchange became a Northern policy, very to their own men brutal but effective war policy nonetheless.
Alan provided the link to the book that quotes from original sources the endless heated debates, and the many editorials, and the policy decisions and the repercussions of those decisions, all dealing with the extremely controversial issue of emancipating and arming the slaves to serve as soldiers.
You seem to say there was no controversy whatsoever and it was the normal course of events to use slaves as soldiers. You casually wave it off as some non-issue. Strange how Cleburne and Lee and Davis and dozens of Southern editors didn't see it as quite so non-controversial.
If it was the policy in Richmond to have slaves fight, then why the need to silence Cleburne? Why the need for editorials begging Richmond to change the policy and arm the slaves, why the need for more editorials saying no, do not let slaves fight? All the editorials pro and con are completely pointless if it was already going on, aren't they? If it was already happening, as you so lightly suggest and Richmond was in all in favor, then why the need for anyone to argue in the CSA congress whether or not to pass a bill to have it happen in 1865 ?
Cleburne and others saw clearly in 1863 that unless more manpower could be found to fight, the goal of independence was probably unattainable, and they made a very valid suggestion that it should be policy to offer emancipation to any slave willing to fight to help achieve independence for the CSA. Eventually, almost two years later, Davis and Lee and the legislature in Richmond finally agreed but only in 1865 when the ball was all but over.
If it was already happening as you imply, then there was no problem was there? Why not just go ahead and do it on a larger scale and win the war?
The South did not have enough soldiers to win independence, obviously, and they lost. A clear choice was made to not emancipate slaves and arm them as soldiers. The South might have also won crucial diplomatic recognition from England and other European nations who might have actively sided with the CSA as an independent nation maybe even with only mere promise to emancipate slaves after the War, but they chose not to do that either. Why not do whatever it takes to win the recognition, if independence was the most important goal?
Whoever made those choices clearly chose that to maintain slavery was more important, and decided "we'll take our chances on winning independence with slavery, rather than guarantee it without".