He also shot another slave owner, so...based

Well, I think there's more complexity to the hagiography than that. Both the connection to the famous biography of Hamilton -- which did discuss slavery -- and all the corporate sponsorship he received from early on, along with the actual research he did beyond the one biography makes me think it needed to be more conscious than you give him credit for. We even have him talking in interviews about how he originally discussed slavery -- and the various Founders' crimes -- more but then cut it because it was just kind of a downer, man, and he couldn't find a way to involve it in a story because it was generally a very static element in Hamilton's life. He was born into a slaver household and he died in one, with only poverty interrupting that status in between.

But more importantly, he doesn't just gloss over this shit, he rewrites it. He multiple times -- including from like the third song -- characterizes Hamilton as some type of abolitionist speaking out against slavery and the Schuylers as politically engaged feminists and so on when there is just zero evidence of it! He just invented it! And it persists to the very end of the play in Eliza's epilogue!

And I forgot about this part until now, but they cast Hamilton as an "immigrant" to deliberately liken him to immigrants in present-day America when one struggles to find similarity other than being poor at the time. There's a weird sort of brown-washing going on that ignores that Hamilton was a white colonizer, as though he was a fucking Latino Caribbean or something (LMM is ethnically a white Puerto Rican iirc, so perhaps this helps the illusion).

God, everything about this play just annoys me. It's so fucked up, pretending this social-climbing bastard who -- let us be clear -- was not just personally involved with the slaving Schuyler family for his own enrichment but also helped cement the federalist defense of chattel slavery with his central bank scheme that is celebrated as basically his central accomplishment in the play, but you hardly notice because he does it by delivering a line about how rich the southern slavers are! Good thing the virtuous north doesn't do slavery! Anyway, here's why we need to use some of the blood money from the south to help the north . . .

The weird thing is that the writing does condemn slavery from like its third song onward, and it tries to cast Hamilton as an abolitionist while making zero mention of anyone but Jefferson owning slaves, despite literally the entire cast other than John Adams personally being slavers or married to one (even Peggy Schuyler married one before she died, afaik). It doesn't just do the usual history book thing of "it was normal back then," it actively revises history to make Hamilton, the Schuylers, and so on look much more progressive than they were as though they were struggling against their era to promote human welfare!

Edit: Oh, there is the one actual abolitionist whose name I forget, but he is cynically used to, again, falsely paint Hamilton as a fellow abolitionist.