I keep telling you to talk to an economist or a reputable historian about this so they can tell you where you are wrong.
I notice that you posted another picture that doesn’t say what you think it does (Post #53). It shows that cotton growing was possible in California and in Arizona. Compare it to maps of where slaves and slaveowners were and you’ll see that areas that didn’t grow cotton had more than a few slaveowners and enslaved people.
To be sure, some of these areas were tobacco and sugar growing areas. But counties in Florida, Missouri, and Arkansas that didn’t grow cotton also had slaves and slaveowning families. So did counties in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and North Carolina outside the main cotton-growing areas. So did counties in Virginia that grew wheat (which could also be grown in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma). Once slavery was legal in a state and enough supporters of slavery lived there, uses would be found for enslaved people.
I have no faith in "experts." Credentials do not impress me, and on certain politically charged topics (such as this), I don't trust them to be honest or objective.
Too many people want to steer the evidence to support what they want to be true, and won't even consider evidence that undermines what is the popular view.
I notice that you posted another picture that doesn’t say what you think it does (Post #53). It shows that cotton growing was possible in California and in Arizona.
It is possible now. It certainly was not possible in 1860. Anything from West Texas to parts further west is grown using aquifers and modern pump and irrigation systems that didn't exist in the 1860s.
Now I have read that people successfully grew cotton in Arizona next to a river in the 1880s, but it was a small scale experiment, and doesn't even address the issue of how you would ship cotton from Arizona to markets back East or in Europe.
But what the map does show is that other than below Oklahoma, you couldn't grow cotton at all in the territories, so all the worry about "expansion" of slavery was just nonsense.
Last year I came across a video of Zachary Taylor. It talked about his life, and one of the things mentioned is that even though he was a follower of Henry Clay, his political allies were frustrated that he was not getting on the "expansion of slavery" band wagon.
He was not concerned about it because as a Military officer, he had been all through the regions in question, and he knew it was impossible to grow cotton or any other crop in those areas, and therefore knew it was completely infeasible to send slaves there.
Once slavery was legal in a state and enough supporters of slavery lived there, uses would be found for enslaved people.
This is likely true, but as with the Northern states which gradually realized their value wasn't worth their cost, it is unlikely that any of this slave presence would have been to any significant degree.
Additionally, while looking at this issue some time ago, I discovered a major portion of the opposition to slavery was not actual opposition to slavery, but was instead opposition to any black people being in white communities.
It was entirely racism based, not morality based.
They hated black people and did not want any of them around. That's the ugly little truth about Northern opposition to slavery and "expansion" of slavery.
1 black person in a white community was seen as too many.
Beyond agriculture, the Western states were more conducive to mining, ranching, and small scale farming. I don't think you can make a case that slavery would have worked in the West at that time.