Commission to Study African American Civil War Sailors in Maryland
SB13 establishes a temporary Commission to Study African American Civil War Sailors in Maryland. The commission is tasked with researching the history of African American sailors from Maryland who served in the Union Navy during the Civil War, including muster rolls, service locations, and honors or recognitions they received. It is also directed to develop findings and recommendations about whether, and how, to fund, design, construct, and site an appropriate memorial dedicated to these sailors.
The commission would include legislative members and representatives from state agencies and preservation/history organizations, with the Governor designating the chair and the State Archives providing staff support. Members would serve without compensation, though they may be reimbursed for expenses. The commission must report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by December 1, 2025, and the act is set to take effect July 1, 2025, then automatically expire on June 30, 2026.
The bill does not directly change substantive law or create a permanent program; instead, it creates a short-lived study commission within state government. Its main legal effect is to authorize the commission’s membership, duties, staffing support, reporting deadline, and sunset date, while involving the State Archives and other state entities in the study process. The bill may influence future appropriations, memorial planning, and historical preservation policy if the commission recommends a memorial or related action.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a commemorative and research-focused proposal with an informational rather than controversial purpose. The structure of the bill suggests likely support for recognizing an overlooked part of Maryland and Civil War history, especially through historical study and memorial recommendations. No contrary positions or recorded vote patterns are available in the provided context.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. Potential areas for debate, if any arise, would likely concern the need for a new commission, the use of state staff and resources, the scope of the historical research, and whether state funds should be directed toward a memorial. The bill’s temporary nature and limited mandate may reduce opposition, but any disagreement would likely center on priorities, costs, and the memorial recommendation rather than the historical subject itself.