That sentence is a bit misleading, since it neglect to mention that the "Hawaiian Revolution" was basically a coup by the American missionaries and planters with the express goal of disenfranchising the Hawaiian people and joining the US.

Ah yes, the usual ignorant clichés:

• The US government and military had absolutely nothing to do with the 1893 Hawaiian coup. While American businessmen who wanted to increase economic ties between the islands and the US were among the coup plotters, Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston, the two leaders of the coup, were both native-born Hawaiian citizens, as were several others in their group.
• US minister to Hawaii John Stevens, a member of the group, arranged for US sailors and marines who were stationed on warships in Honolulu harbor to make their presence known, allegedly to protect American citizens. The sailors came off their ships, marched through the city, then reboarded their ships; this was the sum total of US military involvement. When Washington learned of Stevens' completely unauthorized involvement as an American diplomat in the coup, the State Department fired him.
• The US military already had had a military presence in Hawaii for decades, with a shipyard and coaling base at Pearl Harbor. While always interested in maintaining and strengthening its overseas presence, acquiring Hawaii would, for the US military, have changed little. Its Pacific and Asiatic Squadrons were long used to working out of foreign harbors such as Honolulu and Hong Kong, and the US had no territories west of California.
• A completely unexpected outcome of the Spanish-American War of 1898 was that the US for the first time gained Pacific and Asiatic territories in the Philippines and Guam. Now Hawaii became much more important for the military, and this definitely contributed to the US annexing the Republic of Hawaii later that year. But, again, this came after the US suddenly gained reasons for Hawaii becoming much more important to it, not before.

Calling the annexation of Texas peaceful seems a bit disingenuous as well. Just because the US army didn't officially invade (though it did certainly play a pivotal role in the "Hawaiian Revolution")

See above. If you can't get basic historical facts right, why do you bother blathering about them in public?

a great deal of violence was central to both annexations.

No and no. The Hawaiian revoution was about as bloodless as a coup can be. As for the Texas revolution, it occurred a decade before US annexation. Let me repeat: The Mexican War occurred after Mexico declared war on the US over the latter's annexation of territory the Mexicans (but not anyone else) still regarded as their territory.

The annexation of Hawaii was blatantly unethical enough that the Senate couldn't get the votes for a treaty of annexation, and so never actually legally annexed Hawaii, though this point was made moot by statehood.

Hawaii was annexed by joint resolution, the same way as Texas.

While this violence must be approached in historical context, I don't think it does anybody any good to promote American exceptionalism with regards to territory acquisition. Territory acquisition has always been a bloody affair, and our history really isn't any different.

Let me repeat: The US purchased the Louisiana Territory (the entire center of the country), Alaska, and the Gadsden strip, and annexed Hawaii and Texas, two sovereign nations with governments that desired to join the US. Heck, the US even paid Mexico after defeating Mexico in war—again, a war Mexico started—for territory which, with the exception of a thin strip along the California, everyone—Americans and Mexicans—thought was utterly and completely worthless. It then paid Mexico again a decade later for a small chunk of more worthless land that only had value in potentially providing the US room to build a railroad to southern California. Among Western nations, that's a remarkably peaceful record of land acquisition.