So what are you saying, that "Cotton was the only thing making slavery profitable" stands for a whole bunch of other things making slavery profitable?
So what would you suggest slavery would have been good for in the "territories?"
Mining, for one. Slaves had already been used in the coal mines of Virginia (there are insurance records of claims made by owners after mine explosions) and in the lead mines of Missouri.
If they were profitable there, wouldn't you think there would have been a lot more of them there?
New Mexico had been US territory barely a decade, and had hardly had an influx of settlers since that time, although a law guaranteeing the protection of slave property had been passed in 1859 to pave the way for it to be expanded there. Given time, and the opening of mines, there could easily have been more. Again, you have this very blinkered position that slaves were only good for a couple of things.
And of course, you neglect the fact that while New Mexico may have had only a small number of black slaves, there were large numbers of Indian slaves. When congress outlawed slavery in the territories in 1862, New Mexico residents petitioned for compensation for 600 Indian slaves. In fact, slavery of Indians persisted after the way, and a government investigator in 1867 estimated there were 400 Indian slaves in Santa Fe alone. But I guess their owners were losing money on them all because there was no cotton (or whatever cotton is a synecdoche for), right?
You mentioned 1.8 million slaves doing cotton, and 1.4 million slaves doing something else and now you are talking about 600 Indian slaves plus 12 black slaves in all of New Mexico territory?
You are making my point for me.