And I say he was good but not the greatest. The greats of that era were all defined in their respective areas of practice. In legal scholarship it was St. George Tucker, aka America's Blackstone. In courtroom ability it was Felix Grundy, who came about a decade after Hamilton. In judicial stature it was Marshall, who needs no introduction.
A course which mentions those names in passing
It's no matter of passive mention for them. A course entitled "British Legal History" or "British-American Legal History" will undoubtedly focus one or more lectures on Coke, Hale, and Blackstone plus a lecture on the Americans as a group (which will probably go over Tucker, Story, and maybe Rawls). Marshall will probably get a day as well. Hamilton, by comparison, will be a passively mentioned historical footnote as an accomplished lawyer but little more.
Blackstone is a different matter because of his role in actually providing a teaching tool that has been used by the generations after him.
Blackstone's contribution is no mere teaching tool, but rather his legal scholarship on the common law. Coke, Hale, and Tucker all provided similar legal scholarship, which is their respective contribution. Hamilton, on the other hand, is simply not known on par with the others as a legal scholar. He is known as a lawyer and a skilled one at that. But not in the sense of a Blackstone or Coke or any other of their category.
Tucker's legal and patriotic credentials are beyond dispute - and I've always found it worth noting that his 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries acknowledges the right of State secession. How times have changed...
;>)