Having access to large tracts of land is not a necessary precondition to industrialization (see South Korea). Did the capital accumulation from the exploitation of resources in the American West make it easier to industrialize? Probably. But America would have industrialized if it never expanded beyond the Ohio River valley (access to coal probably was necessary).
Also, as an aside, yes, most of the American West was largely lucked into. America was lucky that France and Spain were dirt broke, that Britain was distracted by continental conflicts with France and Russia, and that native societies had been decimated by disease and a subsequent collapse in governance. That's not to say that there wasn't smart, farsighted leadership in American government, but it was a weak power.
> Having access to large tracts of land is not a necessary precondition to industrialization
But having access to large tracts of land with resources ( like oil ) is. I guess you missed the "chock full of oil" part.
> (see South Korea).
Perfect example. How did Korea industrialize? By being annexed by the japanese ( who went about acquiring tons of land with resources ) and then being annexed by the US with our global network of resource links.
> Also, as an aside, yes, most of the American West was largely lucked into.
It wasn't "lucked into". We won wars against the british and spanish and mexico. And we intimidated the french. And we fought wars against the natives.
> but it was a weak power.
Yes. Because major world powers cede a continent sized piece of territory with an infinite amount of resources to a "weak power".
If the US was a "weak power", then the french, british and russian empires in the 1800s must have been a joke.