Adding to what Angelo said, we have a 1909 letter from Giuseppe Morello to Chicago boss Rosario Dipenza where he attempts to explain certain differences between the Assemblea and the Gran Consiglio (also known as the Consiglio Supremo). Unfortunately it is still vague but one thing he says is that members of the Gran Consiglio can attend the Assemblea meetings but can't vote or intervene in the process. Gran Consiglieri look to have been high-level consultants / mediators but not directly involved in the decision-making that goes on at an Assemblea. Assemblea meetings look to have included bosses or their designated representatives (i.e. sostituti) who voted on matters of national importance, including conflicts and disputes within individual Families if the issue escalates beyond a Family's control.
For the Gran Consiglio, at one point in Gentile's book he is described as a "Consigliere to the Capo of the Consiglio Supremo, an intermediary and peacemaker". This implies that the capo dei capi was actually the head of this national consiglio, which matches Joe Bonanno who insisted that the "boss of bosses" was actually a "capo consigliere" (head councillor). It also makes sense as individual Families had their own consiglio as Angelo described with an elected chairman or secretary (not the Family boss). So there was a sort of "as above, so below" system at play where the national mafia had a council with an elected chairman (the so-called capo dei capi) and the individual Families had their own council with an elected chairman. In individual Families, we know the council was not a "ruling panel" but a body designed to discuss/vote on general policy and formal procedure as well as hold underworld trials for members. As a member of the Gran Consiglio, Gentile attended trials where he similarly advocated/discussed problems involving members in different places that had national implications.
We have a massive thread on here about the Family consigli and this existed not only all over the country but also in Sicily:
viewtopic.php?t=6598
Something interesting is the national capo could designate a sostituto to act for him at an Assemblea meeting in his absence. During the 1920s, Gentile said D'Aquila used Giuseppe Traina (his Family consigliere) in this capacity and there is a Magaddino tape where he discusses an early 1920s Assemblea about a Buffalo leadership dispute and though it isn't stated outright it comes across like Chicago boss Michele Merlo (a highly dignified, respected leader) was chairing the meeting.
Adding to what he said about the relationship between Sicily and the US, where Sicily was sometimes consulted about problems in the US and advocated for members/leaders in trouble (most famous example is the Morello-Lupo faction visiting Sicily to try and get their death sentences lifted). The opposite also seems to be true, as D'Aquila sent emissaries to Sicily in the mid-1920s to mediate on behalf of Palermo bosses Antonino Grillo (Mineo's bro-in-law) and his ally Francesco Motisi (Lupo's bro-in-law) in the emerging Palermo war at the time. A source said Grillo had twice come to the US to provide assistance to D'Aquila so D'Aquila was returning the favor to help Grillo. So it wasn't that American-based members were the little brothers who were subservient to Sicily, it was a reciprocal relationship based on alliances and advocacy and Americans could assist with problems in Sicily as well.
An important detail is that of the known Assemblea meetings, not a single one was a "racket summit" or anything like that where crime or business was discussed. They were purely related to politics within the formal organization itself. Should note that Melchiorre Allegra explicitly said there was an Assemblea meeting in Sicily during the 1920s Palermo war so that existed there as well.
What all of this shows is the mafia was not a system of "giving orders" but a complex national and even international system of arbitration, mediation, and political negotiaton. Unfortunately we will likely never get rid of the myth that these meetings were "racket summits" or that type of thing but the facts are there proving otherwise.
Adding to what Angelo said, we have a 1909 letter from Giuseppe Morello to Chicago boss Rosario Dipenza where he attempts to explain certain differences between the Assemblea and the Gran Consiglio (also known as the Consiglio Supremo). Unfortunately it is still vague but one thing he says is that members of the Gran Consiglio can attend the Assemblea meetings but can't vote or intervene in the process. Gran Consiglieri look to have been high-level consultants / mediators but not directly involved in the decision-making that goes on at an Assemblea. Assemblea meetings look to have included bosses or their designated representatives (i.e. sostituti) who voted on matters of national importance, including conflicts and disputes within individual Families if the issue escalates beyond a Family's control.
For the Gran Consiglio, at one point in Gentile's book he is described as a "Consigliere to the Capo of the Consiglio Supremo, an intermediary and peacemaker". This implies that the capo dei capi was actually the head of this national consiglio, which matches Joe Bonanno who insisted that the "boss of bosses" was actually a "capo consigliere" (head councillor). It also makes sense as individual Families had their own consiglio as Angelo described with an elected chairman or secretary (not the Family boss). So there was a sort of "as above, so below" system at play where the national mafia had a council with an elected chairman (the so-called capo dei capi) and the individual Families had their own council with an elected chairman. In individual Families, we know the council was not a "ruling panel" but a body designed to discuss/vote on general policy and formal procedure as well as hold underworld trials for members. As a member of the Gran Consiglio, Gentile attended trials where he similarly advocated/discussed problems involving members in different places that had national implications.
We have a massive thread on here about the Family consigli and this existed not only all over the country but also in Sicily: https://theblackhand.club/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6598
Something interesting is the national capo could designate a sostituto to act for him at an Assemblea meeting in his absence. During the 1920s, Gentile said D'Aquila used Giuseppe Traina (his Family consigliere) in this capacity and there is a Magaddino tape where he discusses an early 1920s Assemblea about a Buffalo leadership dispute and though it isn't stated outright it comes across like Chicago boss Michele Merlo (a highly dignified, respected leader) was chairing the meeting.
Adding to what he said about the relationship between Sicily and the US, where Sicily was sometimes consulted about problems in the US and advocated for members/leaders in trouble (most famous example is the Morello-Lupo faction visiting Sicily to try and get their death sentences lifted). The opposite also seems to be true, as D'Aquila sent emissaries to Sicily in the mid-1920s to mediate on behalf of Palermo bosses Antonino Grillo (Mineo's bro-in-law) and his ally Francesco Motisi (Lupo's bro-in-law) in the emerging Palermo war at the time. A source said Grillo had twice come to the US to provide assistance to D'Aquila so D'Aquila was returning the favor to help Grillo. So it wasn't that American-based members were the little brothers who were subservient to Sicily, it was a reciprocal relationship based on alliances and advocacy and Americans could assist with problems in Sicily as well.
An important detail is that of the known Assemblea meetings, not a single one was a "racket summit" or anything like that where crime or business was discussed. They were purely related to politics within the formal organization itself. Should note that Melchiorre Allegra explicitly said there was an Assemblea meeting in Sicily during the 1920s Palermo war so that existed there as well.
What all of this shows is the mafia was not a system of "giving orders" but a complex national and even international system of arbitration, mediation, and political negotiaton. Unfortunately we will likely never get rid of the myth that these meetings were "racket summits" or that type of thing but the facts are there proving otherwise.