THE BLACK HAND FORUM

Valachi mistaken the Valenti brothers of Rochester, NY and Joe Black of Colorado as being made members of the Bonanno family, when in fact they had strong ties to the Bonannos, but belonged to different Families.
Gagliano had strong ties to Los Angeles and New Orleans.

[quote="HairyKnuckles"]A figurehead he was not. But it´s possible that he allowed his underboss some free reigns in running things especially in the late stages of his life when he was ill and probably unmotivated. The report Critchley is referring to may be based on information from the early 1950s when Gagliano took a step back.

Dwalin, the Mafia is (or used to be) a channel, or a network, for its members to use in order to upgrade themselves in society and gain power. Poverty and misery were a strong motivating factor to join the Mafia. And not all of them were hardened criminals. Many members were legit businessmen who understood joining the Mafia would bring them financial gain. Being a member of the Mafia could secure income by being the only local barber, the local undertaker, the local grocer, the local fruit peddler etc in a neighborhood or particular block. A membership could also help secure a monopoly in more sophisticated and higher level of business. Gagliano seems to have been into this kind of stuff according to Critchley. But he was also a don.[/quote]

You said it perfectly. Gagliano was from a family of mafiosi who were active going back to the days of Morello and likely earlier in Corleone. We also don't know the extent of Gagliano's involvement in corrupting legitimate industries... he seems to have been like some of the modern Genovese and Luccheses who focus on those enterprises except law enforcement was more ignorant in those days.

Not sure I'd take Valachi's word on the money Gagliano did or didn't receive from other rackets, either. Sounds likely Gagliano wasn't demanding huge tributes from his members, but unless Lucchese told Valachi straight up that he never passed any street money to Gagliano, I don't see how Valachi would have known.

I also think this plays into some of the talks we've had on here about what it actually meant to be an underboss back in the day. The underboss was more of what we would now call a "street boss", with the underboss directing day-to-day activities.

Joe Bonanno was another hands off boss who used his underbosses to direct a lot of family activities, though he was not as low-key as Gagliano. Costello was a hands off boss, too. Not sure on Mangano and Profaci, though Profaci has been said to have demanded high tributes from his people. Outside NY, Joe Ida of Philly gave most of the control of his family to underboss Marco Reginelli.

A figurehead he was not. But it´s possible that he allowed his underboss some free reigns in running things especially in the late stages of his life when he was ill and probably unmotivated. The report Critchley is referring to may be based on information from the early 1950s when Gagliano took a step back.

Dwalin, the Mafia is (or used to be) a channel, or a network, for its members to use in order to upgrade themselves in society and gain power. Poverty and misery were a strong motivating factor to join the Mafia. And not all of them were hardened criminals. Many members were legit businessmen who understood joining the Mafia would bring them financial gain. Being a member of the Mafia could secure income by being the only local barber, the local undertaker, the local grocer, the local fruit peddler etc in a neighborhood or particular block. A membership could also help secure a monopoly in more sophisticated and higher level of business. Gagliano seems to have been into this kind of stuff according to Critchley. But he was also a don.

Unless we find a statement from some CI from that period, I don't think we'll ever know for certain. We also don't know enough about Gagliano's "short racketeering episode." It wasn't unusual for Mafiosi to muscle their way into a business, run it into the ground, then bankrupt it. Without a thorough investigation, what often got reported during that period was woefully incomplete.

In the book "The Origin of Organized Crime in America: The New York City Mafia, 1891–1931" by David Critchley there is a quote about Tommaso Gagliano:

[quote]Gagliano was a contractor first and Mafia boss second. Valachi said about Gagliano “up to today I know he never got a nickel back and never had a piece of any racket.” Valachi’s observation, matching other materials, implied a permanency of Gagliano’s involvement in the sector that went considerably beyond that noted in a conventional model of racketeering, in which Mafiosi solely sought to enter an industry for ulterior reasons, solely related to the extortion of industrial stakeholders. Yet the financial rewards from Tommaso Gagliano’s short racketeering escapade were negligible. In 1935, Gagliano petitioned for bankruptcy with liabilities of $ 352,676 and assets of $ 79,800.142[/quote]

and at the end of the book, there is a quote from Valachi that somehow shocked me:

[quote]Explaining Valachi’s comment that “Gagliano was more of a figurehead and Tommy Lucchese actually directed the operations of the Family” (FBI, Thomas Luchese, New York Office, February 25, 1963).[/quote]

Was Gagliano really a FIGUREHEAD for Lucchese? I thought Gagliano was one of the most clever bosses, good at being low-key, the opposite to flashy guys who loved cameras, like Colombo and Gotti, to the point that we still don't know almost nothing about him, the degree of his power, what crimes was he exactly involved in, there exists only one photo of him I think. The only time he "slipped" was when he got 15 months for tax evasion in 1932 but even then the law enforcement obviously didn't realize he was a commission member, otherwise they would have tried to give him a longer sentence. So hearing him labeled as a figurehead I was really surprised.

Do you think Valachi was mistaken or was there some truth in it?