THE BLACK HAND FORUM

by B. » Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:22 pm

Patrickgold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:01 pm The most democratic moment in LCN history was in 1973(?) when the Madison family had a vote on whether to continue the family or disband it. All but one or two votes to disband. The ones that voted to keep it going were transferred to the Milwaukee family

Yeah, would still like to know where the other members ended up. The other former members still needed representation -- the most logical choice would be Chicago given some of them started out as Chicago members and Chicago advocated for them when Balistrieri tried to muscle in on Madison, though either way it would be a mere formality as those guys wouldn't have been doing much.

by **Patrickgold** » Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:01 pm

The most democratic moment in LCN history was in 1973(?) when the Madison family had a vote on whether to continue the family or disband it. All but one or two votes to disband. The ones that voted to keep it going were transferred to the Milwaukee family

by **JoeCamel** » Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:18 pm

Fair arguement B. Nice write up as always

by B. » Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:02 pm

You could make a convincing argument that Paul Castellano was a vicious tyrant.

- Had two men involved with his daughter murdered, one allegedly for a stupid joke that hurt Castellano's ego.
- Every sanctioned murder committed by the Gambino family 1967-1985 likely had Castellano's direct or indirect approval.
- One of the most violent, truly nasty murder crews were part of the Castellano faction under his top captain Nino Gaggi.
- Described by his detractors as greedy and self-serving in business, giving more opportunites to his friends/relatives.
- One of the reasons he was killed was because it was believed he would order the murders of Bergin crew members for heroin trafficking and mentioning him on tape.
- Sanctioned the murders of Inzerillos in the USA for interfering with the Sicilian mafia war.
- Extremely polarizing. The thin glue holding the family's rival factions together shattered under his leadership.

Paul Castellano sounds about as violent and power-hungry on paper as any mafia boss, barring complete psychopaths like Casso and Leggio/Riina.

I agree with Gravano that Castellano wasn't a gangster, but was D'Aquila a gangster? What about Mineo, with his doctor brother, Roman wife, and wealthy relatives? These guys were all mafiosi and people had plenty reason to be scared of them, but none of them seem to be gangsters.

A certain picture has been painted of Castellano because it makes a better story: Gotti the Gangster vs. the Big-Nosed Businessman, but if we didn't have tape recordings of Paul Castellano talking about his erectile dysfunction and indigestion and he was as mysterious as Mineo and D'Aquila, we'd probably have a much different idea of him based on the paper record of his actions. Valachi heard rumors that Mineo's wife hated him -- what if we had tape recordings of Mineo and his wife bickering about nonsense at home? How would that change our perception of the faceless "bad guy" we've come to see Mineo as?

There were people in the organization who felt D'Aquila, Mineo, and Castellano were awful tyrants, and there were people who felt they were fair leaders. There were members in their families who felt like their voice was heard by the leadership and there were people who felt the opposite.

I think tyranny, democracy, and fairness in the mafia is often in the eye of the beholder. The same goes for the way the mafia power structure facilitates this.

Going back to the consiglio, if the consiglio votes against you, you might say the consiglio is a corrupt charade. If the consiglio votes in your favor, well, you might sound like Nicky Scarfo: "Thank God for the Sicilian consiglio system."

by **Angelo Santino** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:59 am

D'Aquila was BOB from 1912 until 1928, the longest in American history. While the Mafia was around long before him, the 20's were a period of exponential growth and development. He, more than anyone else, likely shaped what NY became, either by design or indifference. In Sicily, when groups became too large they would break up into smaller groups by neighborhood. In NY, this didn't happen (which allowed D'Aquila to head what was the largest group.) But imagine if he had attempted to break up the groups by neighborhood, we could have had 20 groups in NYC by area.

When you have smaller numbers of 10-30, most members will know the boss who'll be approachable. When you have larger groups it's less so. D'Aquila's name came up in the SS records in the 20's and a member responded to another- "He's too big a man to deal with the likes of you."

But then it also seems that outside of NYC in the early 20's, groups might have been consolidated. What constitutes "Philadelphia" may have been three groups originally and "Buffalo" may have been several groups across the state. This likely wouldn't have happened without D'Aquila and the Grand Council's edict.

And then we have New Orleans, it's lost history. We don't know the scope of things from 1850 to until 1920. For all we know there could have been multiple groups there at an early date. Before 1872, NO was the hub of Mafia America.

---

Additionally, D'Aquila showed signs of the Democratic process when Morello wasn't killed for murdering Loiacano. It was ironed out and apparently decided Morello would live but would forfeit his claim to boss, which went to Masseria. The Mafia is the mafia, but its ranks and hierarchies are more of a bureaucracy than anything else to control/dictate the mafia world.

by B. » Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:07 pm

It's supposed to be a system of representation. Sometimes, maybe more often than we realize when we get away from the more infamous aspects, it actually has been that. Words like "rappresentante", "avugad", and "consiglio" weren't meant to be a cruel irony, but something many members actually strived for within the organization. Outside of the organization they are almost always parasitic and trying to control/dominate/manipulate power and resources, but within the organization there is plenty of evidence that real attempts were made to balance power and maintain a system of internal representation. It doesn't always work and there are plenty of bad actors because it's the mafia, after all.

But keep in mind if you live in the western world, you live in a democratic society. Even though we vote, look at how many of us feel that our politicians don't represent us, make crooked deals, or even steal elections (all sides feel this way). Look at how awful our own political corruption can be in the "free and open" west. The mafia isn't alone as a system of representation that gets easily corrupted, it's a sympton of human nature.

There are probably some people on this board (or more likely, banned from this board) who would tell you Soliai is a tyrant. I have no reason to kiss Soliai's ass, but the man is not a tyrant and he listens to people, cares what they think. A lot this stuff comes down to perspective. Nick Gentile said Salvatore D'Aquila was a tyrant and was sympathetic to Joe Masseria. Maranzano's supporters said Masseria was the worst tyrant of all. Joe Traina and Jimmy DiLeonardo would have told you Salvatore D'Aquila was a great man and noble leader. If you get along with the boss, he's your rappresentante and he's a fair man. If you don't get along with your boss, he's a tyrant who abuses his power. So much of this stuff is POV.

by **Angelo Santino** » Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:20 pm

In it's origin, members were independent entrepreneurs who could do as they please. Among themselves, caporegime and admin were insider offices which mediated disputes. They weren't set up to be criminal posts like we see in the movies. Even Joe Bonanno said "soldier" was misleading.

If I'm a "soldier" who reports to a 70 year old captain who decides to get into drugs, it's in my interest to "touch base" because if I don't, I'm going off on my own without his knowledge and when I run into conflict with another Family who goes to my Family boss who contacts my 70 year old capo, he's going to say "I have no knowledge of this" and if my rivals in the chedrool family went through the proper protocol I lose since I didn't touch base. On a RICO level, my captains is responsible and implicated in drugs, in the Mafia level, I'm just a member whom he represents. If that makes any sense. It's very de-Sopranoesque but the Sopranos/Godfather is very misleading.

by B. » Tue Mar 09, 2021 4:26 pm

New York is exceptional in every way. Despite a few of the families maintaining strong Sicilian mafia ties post-1931 (and a couple still today), they are actually less like the Sicilian mafia than just about every US family barring Chicago and maybe New England.

It's sort of unfortunate that because it is so (in)famous, people think of New York as "normal" when it comes to the mafia but it is anything but that. The idea of families with up to 300 men all overlapping in territory is unheard of in Sicily, where families are much smaller and concentrated in specific territories. Even in Palermo, where there is overlap, the families themselves have a strict jurisdiction based on district or neighborhood and Sicilian mafia history shows that jurisdictional violations are one of the biggest causes of violence there.

This might explain why NYC appears to have established a joint consiglio including all the NYC/NJ families. In the same way there was a Grand Consiglio who helped mediate national disputes, NYC may have established their own "mini" Grand Consiglio specific to New York and this took the place of the individual family consiglio that many (most?) US families maintained until the 1950s/60s. It is hard to say, as we don't know if the NYC families originally had a consiglio within each family, only that members like Valachi and Clemente make reference to this multi-family consiglio later on. Given the individual family consiglio was a relic of the Sicilian mafia, I would bet the NYC families each had one originally within each group and the multi-family consiglio may have been a post-1931 invention. Valachi seemed to think Luciano created it, but I wouldn't be so sure he alone was responsible.

The reality is, some of these traditional roles would have been difficult to manage with 5 families sharing around 1000 members in heavily overlapping territory. I think the original consiglio made sense in smaller US families that were heavily jurisdictional/territorial like the traditional Sicilian cosca.

What's interesting is that San Francisco and San Jose were right next to each other, overlapping a bit, and each one had their own consiglio. Gentile says the SF consiglio had to approve his transfer to their family, and we know San Jose used the consiglio through the 1960s. They didn't have a "joint consiglio" like NYC but that's because SF and SJ were more like neighboring Sicilian cosche, not the bizarre world of NYC.

by **InCamelot** » Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:25 pm

B. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:49 pm In Milwaukee I think general attrition had set in. That was a family made up almost entirely of men from the Bagheria area and their relatives, and by the 1960s they no longer had Bagheresi men flowing into the area. Chicago had also been meddling in Milwaukee's affairs more heavily since the 1950s and Balistrieri used his ties to them to leverage more power. He limited his inner circle to just a few members who did his bidding.

One interesting thing on the ill-fated "seggia" meeting recorded by the FBI is after everyone leaves, capodecina Joe Caminiti stays behind with Balistrieri and makes backhanded comments about the other attendees disrespecting Balistrieri's leadership by arguing with him. So he had a top member in his ear encouraging him to disregard the "seggia," too... it wasn't just Balistrieri alone.

I feel like for Caminti to be taking on an attitude of "don't worry about this seggia thing", its possible that the day-to-day focus of the mob by the 50s and 60s wasn't in a place where the seggia played a crucial role anymore. Its probably true that attrition probably adds significantly to this.

But since we definitely can't attribute the withering away of the seggia to attrition when it comes to the larger families in NY, the only common factor I can see is that maybe mafia capitalism increased greatly into the 20th century.

Possibly because its likely that mediation was less needed in American society compared to Italian society from centuries ago. And instead it was replaced by the need for efficiency. Again I guessed that maybe this is because there is more money to be made in America in the 20th century than the Italy of the 1800s.

B. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:49 pm I don't think it had anything to do with money. The smaller US families were making their greatest profits when their consiglio was in place and active. The consiglio was a cooperative system and cooperation usually creates more opportunity whether it's inside the organization or between the organization and outsiders. Americanization and the older members born and/or made in Sicily were dying, so I think this among other factors pushed the families into a more centralized structure.

Remember too that the consigliere rank was not traditionally a "number 3" in the family, but a position separate from the hierarchy elected by the membership. Another product of Americanization and the centralization of power is the consigliere rank being seen as just another rung on the ladder, i.e. Gravano and Casso holding that position before becoming underboss, plus other lackeys of the boss becoming consigliere who otherwise never would have been in that position.

That's an interesting point. I didn't mean to suggest that when the consiglio went away the mafia became less cooperative, but rather that they began a practice of listening to a single direct superior instead of considering a separate body of elders.

Its interesting that Americanization is translating to a centralized structure here because American government is at least on the surface more democratic than the traditions of previous civilizations. There's the prominence of a Congress for example, which is seen as this USA idea -- a separate body similar to the traditional consig council concept in LCN, and also not part of a pyramid structure. Only in a business/corporation is the idea of a "boss" at the top of a chain of command (day to day I mean, I know there's a board of directors or whatever). Which sort of leads it back to my suspicions that capitalism drove this change in the mob.

There's also a perspective that some people have when it comes to politics is that when we have to vote on everything, things don't get done as efficiently.

Also interesting that the Genovese Family is labeled as the most Americanized, yet at the same time they have the characteristic of using a panel, being less vertical in hierarchy. Although that is more likely to be relatively-harmonious-factionalism turned into relative-democracy.

by B. » Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:01 pm

cavita wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:00 pm Kind of off topic but how did Balistrieri and company see to it to share in the spoils of the Las Vegas skim in the 1980s? If the family was already on a downward spiral I can't figure out why Balistrieri was invited in to that scheme.

Chin broke down the practical arrangements, which I couldn't have answered because I'm half-retarded about that stuff, but remember what member sources have said: a boss is a boss.

It's the same reason the Bonanno family followed protocol and got Buffalo's approval to make a member in Ontario despite the Bonannos having five times the membership. Mafia protocol isn't based on who has the biggest, most "viable" organization (though naturally that helps in countless other ways).

Or a better comparison... it's the same reason Tony Giordano was involved in the Las Vegas skim and sat down with high-ranking Chicago leaders to arrange Teamsters loans when his own organization was on its way out. When Frank Bompensiero visited Giordano in 1968, Giordano broke down the St. Louis family for him and it was in shambles: just a few active members, all but one were old, and the remaining membership was inactive and elderly, being supported financially by Giordano. The family certainly didn't "control" St. Louis organized crime at the time but the leadership was still regarded as mafia leadership by other families.

It's why Billy D'Elia was chosen to mediate a serious dispute between the Philadelphia, Colombo, and Genovese families. They didn't interview him beforehand and count the number of remaining members/associates in his family. He had the status and respect of a boss.

Giordano, Balistrieri, D'Elia, and Todaro are bosses, and bosses are supposed to be treated like bosses.

Of course you have examples like DiLeonardo and Pete Milano, where they went through the motions of following the above protocol yet DiLeonardo says he ended up throwing some abuse toward Milano. That might have had more to do with Milano as an individual and his personal conduct related to the deal in question than it did "Might is Right" logic of having a bigger/stronger family. No doubt having a bigger/stronger family did factor into DiLeonardo's treatment of Milano, but I doubt Michael would say that was that was the actual motivation for his treatment of Milano.

by **chin_gigante** » Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:24 pm

If I remember correctly it was Allen Glick who went to Balistrieri first to see about getting the loan for the casinos, Balistrieri then went to Kansas City, and Kansas City then went to Cleveland. Then the Teamsters gave Glick the loan so he gave a piece of the skim to Milwaukee, Kansas City and Cleveland. Then Kansas City and Milwaukee got into a dispute so Chicago settled it and took a piece of the skim as well

by **cavita** » Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:00 pm

B. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:49 pm In Milwaukee I think general attrition had set in. That was a family made up almost entirely of men from the Bagheria area and their relatives, and by the 1960s they no longer had Bagheresi men flowing into the area. Chicago had also been meddling in Milwaukee's affairs more heavily since the 1950s and Balistrieri used his ties to them to leverage more power. He limited his inner circle to just a few members who did his bidding.

One interesting thing on the ill-fated "seggia" meeting recorded by the FBI is after everyone leaves, capodecina Joe Caminiti stays behind with Balistrieri and makes backhanded comments about the other attendees disrespecting Balistrieri's leadership by arguing with him. So he had a top member in his ear encouraging him to disregard the "seggia," too... it wasn't just Balistrieri alone.

I don't think it had anything to do with money. The smaller US families were making their greatest profits when their consiglio was in place and active. The consiglio was a cooperative system and cooperation usually creates more opportunity whether it's inside the organization or between the organization and outsiders. Americanization and the older members born and/or made in Sicily were dying, so I think this among other factors pushed the families into a more centralized structure.

Remember too that the consigliere rank was not traditionally a "number 3" in the family, but a position separate from the hierarchy elected by the membership. Another product of Americanization and the centralization of power is the consigliere rank being seen as just another rung on the ladder, i.e. Gravano and Casso holding that position before becoming underboss, plus other lackeys of the boss becoming consigliere who otherwise never would have been in that position.

Kind of off topic but how did Balistrieri and company see to it to share in the spoils of the Las Vegas skim in the 1980s? If the family was already on a downward spiral I can't figure out why Balistrieri was invited in to that scheme.

by B. » Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:49 pm

In Milwaukee I think general attrition had set in. That was a family made up almost entirely of men from the Bagheria area and their relatives, and by the 1960s they no longer had Bagheresi men flowing into the area. Chicago had also been meddling in Milwaukee's affairs more heavily since the 1950s and Balistrieri used his ties to them to leverage more power. He limited his inner circle to just a few members who did his bidding.

One interesting thing on the ill-fated "seggia" meeting recorded by the FBI is after everyone leaves, capodecina Joe Caminiti stays behind with Balistrieri and makes backhanded comments about the other attendees disrespecting Balistrieri's leadership by arguing with him. So he had a top member in his ear encouraging him to disregard the "seggia," too... it wasn't just Balistrieri alone.

I don't think it had anything to do with money. The smaller US families were making their greatest profits when their consiglio was in place and active. The consiglio was a cooperative system and cooperation usually creates more opportunity whether it's inside the organization or between the organization and outsiders. Americanization and the older members born and/or made in Sicily were dying, so I think this among other factors pushed the families into a more centralized structure.

Remember too that the consigliere rank was not traditionally a "number 3" in the family, but a position separate from the hierarchy elected by the membership. Another product of Americanization and the centralization of power is the consigliere rank being seen as just another rung on the ladder, i.e. Gravano and Casso holding that position before becoming underboss, plus other lackeys of the boss becoming consigliere who otherwise never would have been in that position.

by **InCamelot** » Mon Mar 08, 2021 3:02 pm

With that Milwaukee incident, it sort of implies that the seggia was already losing its practical function by the time of the Balistrieri argument. Especially since we know of no repercussions against Balistrieri's will after that.

Perhaps this political system didn't work as efficiently for making money when the mob really began to rake it in in the 20th century. Americanization, like you said.

by B. » Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:36 pm

In Milwaukee's case we can answer that. The FBI was able to record a consiglio meeting of the Milwaukee family, which degenerated into heated arguing when senior members/leaders disagreed with boss Frank Balistrieri about an issue and the meeting broke without resolution. The whole point of the consiglio was to allow senior leaders to give opinions/votes on important issues, but Balistrieri apparently didn't like being challenged. I believe Maniaci reported that the consiglio (or "seggia" as they called it) faded away soon after this, no doubt because of Balistrieri's tyranny.

San Jose still used their consiglio through the 1960s and we even have a detailed account of how they operated from a member CI who was on "trial", so it seems like they made an effort to keep it up as long as they were an active family. The consiglio dated back to the Sicilian mafia according to Antonino Calderone, so I'd guess Americanization and an emphasis on the family leader being a "boss" opposed to a "rappresentante" (representative) contributed to its demise. I'd bet there were always struggles between the rappresentante and the consiglio in a given family, but it does seem to be something the early mafia used in earnest.

A Philadelphia source described how that family used to have large meetings of the entire membership, but that faded away over time. This could have been like the "tourna" described by Maniaci in Milwaukee. I would guess these "assembly" meetings of the entire membership within an individual family had to stop because of LE scrutiny -- by the 1950s/60s, you just couldn't have the entire family meeting together in one place.

THE BLACK HAND FORUM

Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

Re: Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?