Some grew tobacco, some grew indigo, and various other stuff, but I doubt tobacco or indigo would grow any better in the territories than the main crop of cotton. But according to you, cotton was "the only thing making slavery profitable."
The truth is that slaves did everything from construction labor to industrial work to waiting tables in restaurants, and there's no reason to believe that everyone who owned a slave who worked in these areas was losing money on the proposition, or to believe that as the country expanded westward, new ways to utilize slaves would not have been found. Your constant insistence that everything that could have been done with slaves had been found, that cotton and other plantation agriculture was it, and there was absolutely no other thing slaves could do is without foundation.
Some grew tobacco, some grew indigo, and various other stuff, but I doubt tobacco or indigo would grow any better in the territories than the main crop of cotton. But according to you, cotton was "the only thing making slavery profitable."
Are you familiar with the concept of a Synecdoche?
...or to believe that as the country expanded westward, new ways to utilize slaves would not have been found.
So what would you suggest slavery would have been good for in the "territories?" According to this Wikipedia article on New Mexico: "Regardless of its official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen"
Also bear in mind that this was the case when "New Mexico" territory looked like this.
If they were profitable there, wouldn't you think there would have been a lot more of them there?