by chin_gigante » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:50 am
An excerpt from “Organised Crime and the 1960 Presidential Election” (John T Binder, 2007).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/276980 ... 13d9f59daf
The federal government first took concerted action against the Cosa Nostra, the organised crime families in the United States which grew out of the Prohibition Era bootlegging gangs, after the 1957 Apalachin meeting of gangsters from around the country was exposed by the New York state police. At the same time, the McClellan Committee of the US Senate, including Senator John F Kennedy and chief counsel Robert F Kennedy, probed organised crime in various cities, including Chicago. Robert Kennedy took particular delight in annoying mobsters, including Sam Giancana, the operating boss of the Outfit. In one exchange, Kennedy asked the smirking Giancana, “Are you going to tell us anything or just giggle? I thought only little girls giggled.”
Several writers claim the Outfit played a role in the election of John F Kennedy in 1960. The earliest statement, by William Brashler, is quite mild. He argues that Frank Sinatra approached Sam Giancana and asked him to help elect Kennedy. However, the Outfit’s efforts were secondary – the icing on the cake – to those of the Chicago Democratic Machine, which went all out for an Irish-Catholic strongly supported by Mayor Richard Daley. According to Brashler, “an order from the mob to work for Kennedy only insured a total Chicago effort of the kind that historically had been known to work miracles in the early-morning hours of vote counting.” In other words, the Chicago Democratic Machine delivered on election day as it usually did, with the Outfit controlled wards doing little/nothing for Kennedy beyond what was done by other wards.
Similarly, former FBI agent William Roemer states:
Whether or not Giancana got that commitment from Sinatra [that Kennedy would halt the FBI investigation of Giancana], Giancana exercised influence through the group of politicians known as the “West Side Bloc” [from political districts just west of and including the Loop] ... But much more important than Giancana’s influence was that of Mayor Richard J Daley, whose interests at the time just happened to jibe with Giancana’s. To say that Giancana’s influence swung the election to Kennedy would be farfetched; to say that Daley delivered Chicago and Illinois may be true...
Roemer, it should be noted, had developed two high placed informants in the Outfit and was uniquely aware of what happened in that world.
A greatly amplified version of these events, compared to the accounts by Brashler and Roemer, appears in the book Double Cross by Sam and Chuck Giancana, the half nephew and half-brother, respectively, of Sam Giancana, the Outfit boss from 1957 to 1966. According to the Giancanas, John Kennedy’s father, Joseph, contacted Sam Giancana before the election. After several meetings, Giancana and the elder Kennedy struck a deal. “I help get Jack elected and, in return, he calls off the heat,” Sam Giancana is reputed to have said. Giancana and Giancana claim the Outfit did everything possible for Kennedy in the wards they controlled. Not only was there massive fraudulent voting, but hoods inside polling places intimidated voters, making sure all ballots were cast for Kennedy by breaking the arms and legs of those who refused to comply. The Kennedys, however, “double-crossed” Giancana and the Outfit by ordering increased pressure on the Chicago Mob, despite Giancana supposedly meeting with John Kennedy at the White House. This in turn led the Outfit to assassinate both John and Robert Kennedy.
Seymour Hersh, in a chapter entitled “The Stolen Election”, also maintains there was a pre-election deal. Former Chicago lawyer Robert McDonnell claims he arranged a meeting between Joseph Kennedy and Sam Giancana in Chicago, which (curiously) McDonnell saw take place but did not attend. McDonnell asserts the Outfit delivered votes at the ward level in Chicago for Kennedy and also influenced various unions (although it is unclear whether he means locally or nationally) to support Kennedy. Furthermore, the wife of Chicago mobster Murray Humphreys, who in 1960 was the Outfit’s point man on political corruption, alleges the Outfit delivered Teamster union votes at the national level. She claims to not only have witnessed her husband co-ordinating this effort, but to have worked with him as Humphreys directed Teamsters leaders from around the country.
Gus Russo largely repeats the stories told by the Giancanas and Hersh. In his version of the events, the Outfit used extreme measures to deliver the vote for Kennedy locally and, through Murray Humphreys, made sure that union members nationally voted Democratic. Although he quotes Mrs Humphreys’ Teamster focused account, Russo asserts that non-Teamster union members around the country were influenced to vote for Kennedy. Russo places particular emphasis on the Outfit’s ability to deliver union votes in four states: Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Nevada. He believes the “contention that it [the Outfit] ‘elected Jack’ is not without merit” and states more strongly that Humphreys, Tony Accardo and other Chicago mobsters met in June 1960 to “decide who would become the next president of the United States.”
On the other hand, Len O'Connor, the dean of Chicago's political commentators, remarks:
The power of the Daley Machine was evident throughout the city, only the two crime syndicate wards, the First and the Twenty-eighth, delivering a low count, fewer votes [in terms of plurality] for Kennedy in 1960, in fact, then they had delivered for Daley in 1955. The Machine interpreted this disappointing performance as a mild rebuke by the syndicate people who had been mercilessly pounded by the presidential candidate’s brother, Robert [during the McClellan Committee hearings].
O’Connor notes that Charlie Weber, the Democratic 45th Ward alderman, was persuaded by his friend Murray Humphreys to openly oppose Kennedy’s candidacy. In a nutshell, O’Connor’s view is that the Outfit controlled wards and the 45th Ward worked against Kennedy in 1960. O’Connor was certainly very well informed about Chicago politics, counting aldermen such as Weber among his sources and examines, at least in a cursory fashion, voting data. He further notes that labour unions tied to the Outfit were very displeased with Robert Kennedy and the McClellan Committee.
When closely scrutinised, the extreme versions put forth by the Giancanas, Hersh and Russo are highly implausible and/ or are based on sources who lack credibility. For example, there is not one word in any of Chicago’s four major daily newspapers about violence directed at voters in November 1960, much less of a 1920s style wave terror. More generally, the Outfit did not have the ability to deliver meaningfully for Kennedy in Chicago. As discussed below, it controlled the (Democratic party) political machinery in only five of Chicago’s 50 wards. Even if it had delivered unusual pluralities in those few wards, it is unlikely this would have tipped the scale in a national election.
Moreover, the Outfit did not have the manpower to deliver in even those five wards. In 1960 there were 279 precincts/ polling places in the five “Outfit wards.” To effectively intimidate voters at a polling place, it would have taken at least four or five goons – a smaller number would have allowed irate voters to possibly pummel the “intimidators”. With some 300 full members in 1960, many of whom were advanced in age, the Outfit would at best have been able to (if it so desired and the police did not intervene), coerce voters in one of these wards, each ward having between 46 and 63 precincts. On the latter point it is noteworthy that when Al Capone used violence in 1924 to help elect the Republican candidates in the suburb of Cicero, which had about 70,000 residents at the time, he needed to get additional men from Dion O’Banion’s North Side gang. Certainly Capone’s gang was larger than the Outfit in 1960 while Cicero was much smaller in population than the five Outfit wards.
Allegations the Outfit manipulated the Teamsters or other unions nationally are equally implausible. Individual Cosa Nostra crime families generally controlled local chapters of unions, rather than the national union. Therefore, the Outfit could not command union officials from the entire country to do its bidding. More important, Teamsters’ boss Jimmy Hoffa despised the Kennedys and publicly endorsed Richard Nixon, eliminating the possibility this union worked for John Kennedy.
It is also difficult to believe that Joseph Kennedy met with a notorious gangster under investigation by a Senate committee his two sons were associated with. If he had been seen, overheard or linked to Giancana, the damage to John Kennedy’s campaign would have been immeasurable. Even a hint of such a meeting, leaked by someone involved, would have been damaging. Also, it is hard to comprehend how the Outfit, having been attacked by the McClellan Committee, would trust the Kennedys. In fact, Brennan reports two days after the election that John Kennedy was going to crack down hard on organised crime, especially the Outfit in co-operation with Chicago’s police superintendent, as an outgrowth of his activities with the McClellan Committee hearings.
Furthermore, the credibility of several individuals who have made these claims is at best questionable. Organised crime operates with the same degree of secrecy as major intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Only those who absolutely “need to know” are informed at the time about particular operations. The average full member of the Outfit would not have known the information the Giancanas claim to have known, much less Chuck Giancana, who was only a lowly Mob associate. Moreover, the Giancanas’ book is not taken seriously by well informed students of the Chicago Outfit. In it the authors claim Sam Giancana was involved in every major organised crime event in Chicago from his adolescent years onward, even though most of their assertions are contradicted by known facts or are unsupported by other evidence.
The same point applies even more strongly to the wife of Murray Humphreys. In the completely male world of the Cosa Nostra, members do not share information with females, including wives. In fact, female relatives of gangsters make remarks such as, “I’m a girl. They never told me anything.” Certainly union leaders would have refused to talk business with Humphreys if a woman or non-Outfit member were present. If Humphreys had even suggested to his superiors that his wife attend business meetings – much less that she work with him – they would have decided he was insane and likely killed him and her also.
Bob McDonnell is similarly lacking in credibility. A disbarred attorney who was a compulsive drinker and uncontrollable gambler, McDonnell borrowed heavily from Outfit associated loan shark Sam DeStefano. When he was unable to pay his debts, DeStefano put McDonnell to work for him, including having him carry two dead bodies from his basement. It is difficult to find informed, unbiased individuals, especially retired Chicago police officers who worked on organised crime, who place faith in statements by Robert McDonnell.
An excerpt from “Organised Crime and the 1960 Presidential Election” (John T Binder, 2007). https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27698060.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A4a47600d5a64915a56f05513d9f59daf
The federal government first took concerted action against the Cosa Nostra, the organised crime families in the United States which grew out of the Prohibition Era bootlegging gangs, after the 1957 Apalachin meeting of gangsters from around the country was exposed by the New York state police. At the same time, the McClellan Committee of the US Senate, including Senator John F Kennedy and chief counsel Robert F Kennedy, probed organised crime in various cities, including Chicago. Robert Kennedy took particular delight in annoying mobsters, including Sam Giancana, the operating boss of the Outfit. In one exchange, Kennedy asked the smirking Giancana, “Are you going to tell us anything or just giggle? I thought only little girls giggled.”
Several writers claim the Outfit played a role in the election of John F Kennedy in 1960. The earliest statement, by William Brashler, is quite mild. He argues that Frank Sinatra approached Sam Giancana and asked him to help elect Kennedy. However, the Outfit’s efforts were secondary – the icing on the cake – to those of the Chicago Democratic Machine, which went all out for an Irish-Catholic strongly supported by Mayor Richard Daley. According to Brashler, “an order from the mob to work for Kennedy only insured a total Chicago effort of the kind that historically had been known to work miracles in the early-morning hours of vote counting.” In other words, the Chicago Democratic Machine delivered on election day as it usually did, with the Outfit controlled wards doing little/nothing for Kennedy beyond what was done by other wards.
Similarly, former FBI agent William Roemer states:
Whether or not Giancana got that commitment from Sinatra [that Kennedy would halt the FBI investigation of Giancana], Giancana exercised influence through the group of politicians known as the “West Side Bloc” [from political districts just west of and including the Loop] ... But much more important than Giancana’s influence was that of Mayor Richard J Daley, whose interests at the time just happened to jibe with Giancana’s. To say that Giancana’s influence swung the election to Kennedy would be farfetched; to say that Daley delivered Chicago and Illinois may be true...
Roemer, it should be noted, had developed two high placed informants in the Outfit and was uniquely aware of what happened in that world.
A greatly amplified version of these events, compared to the accounts by Brashler and Roemer, appears in the book Double Cross by Sam and Chuck Giancana, the half nephew and half-brother, respectively, of Sam Giancana, the Outfit boss from 1957 to 1966. According to the Giancanas, John Kennedy’s father, Joseph, contacted Sam Giancana before the election. After several meetings, Giancana and the elder Kennedy struck a deal. “I help get Jack elected and, in return, he calls off the heat,” Sam Giancana is reputed to have said. Giancana and Giancana claim the Outfit did everything possible for Kennedy in the wards they controlled. Not only was there massive fraudulent voting, but hoods inside polling places intimidated voters, making sure all ballots were cast for Kennedy by breaking the arms and legs of those who refused to comply. The Kennedys, however, “double-crossed” Giancana and the Outfit by ordering increased pressure on the Chicago Mob, despite Giancana supposedly meeting with John Kennedy at the White House. This in turn led the Outfit to assassinate both John and Robert Kennedy.
Seymour Hersh, in a chapter entitled “The Stolen Election”, also maintains there was a pre-election deal. Former Chicago lawyer Robert McDonnell claims he arranged a meeting between Joseph Kennedy and Sam Giancana in Chicago, which (curiously) McDonnell saw take place but did not attend. McDonnell asserts the Outfit delivered votes at the ward level in Chicago for Kennedy and also influenced various unions (although it is unclear whether he means locally or nationally) to support Kennedy. Furthermore, the wife of Chicago mobster Murray Humphreys, who in 1960 was the Outfit’s point man on political corruption, alleges the Outfit delivered Teamster union votes at the national level. She claims to not only have witnessed her husband co-ordinating this effort, but to have worked with him as Humphreys directed Teamsters leaders from around the country.
Gus Russo largely repeats the stories told by the Giancanas and Hersh. In his version of the events, the Outfit used extreme measures to deliver the vote for Kennedy locally and, through Murray Humphreys, made sure that union members nationally voted Democratic. Although he quotes Mrs Humphreys’ Teamster focused account, Russo asserts that non-Teamster union members around the country were influenced to vote for Kennedy. Russo places particular emphasis on the Outfit’s ability to deliver union votes in four states: Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Nevada. He believes the “contention that it [the Outfit] ‘elected Jack’ is not without merit” and states more strongly that Humphreys, Tony Accardo and other Chicago mobsters met in June 1960 to “decide who would become the next president of the United States.”
On the other hand, Len O'Connor, the dean of Chicago's political commentators, remarks:
The power of the Daley Machine was evident throughout the city, only the two crime syndicate wards, the First and the Twenty-eighth, delivering a low count, fewer votes [in terms of plurality] for Kennedy in 1960, in fact, then they had delivered for Daley in 1955. The Machine interpreted this disappointing performance as a mild rebuke by the syndicate people who had been mercilessly pounded by the presidential candidate’s brother, Robert [during the McClellan Committee hearings].
O’Connor notes that Charlie Weber, the Democratic 45th Ward alderman, was persuaded by his friend Murray Humphreys to openly oppose Kennedy’s candidacy. In a nutshell, O’Connor’s view is that the Outfit controlled wards and the 45th Ward worked against Kennedy in 1960. O’Connor was certainly very well informed about Chicago politics, counting aldermen such as Weber among his sources and examines, at least in a cursory fashion, voting data. He further notes that labour unions tied to the Outfit were very displeased with Robert Kennedy and the McClellan Committee.
When closely scrutinised, the extreme versions put forth by the Giancanas, Hersh and Russo are highly implausible and/ or are based on sources who lack credibility. For example, there is not one word in any of Chicago’s four major daily newspapers about violence directed at voters in November 1960, much less of a 1920s style wave terror. More generally, the Outfit did not have the ability to deliver meaningfully for Kennedy in Chicago. As discussed below, it controlled the (Democratic party) political machinery in only five of Chicago’s 50 wards. Even if it had delivered unusual pluralities in those few wards, it is unlikely this would have tipped the scale in a national election.
Moreover, the Outfit did not have the manpower to deliver in even those five wards. In 1960 there were 279 precincts/ polling places in the five “Outfit wards.” To effectively intimidate voters at a polling place, it would have taken at least four or five goons – a smaller number would have allowed irate voters to possibly pummel the “intimidators”. With some 300 full members in 1960, many of whom were advanced in age, the Outfit would at best have been able to (if it so desired and the police did not intervene), coerce voters in one of these wards, each ward having between 46 and 63 precincts. On the latter point it is noteworthy that when Al Capone used violence in 1924 to help elect the Republican candidates in the suburb of Cicero, which had about 70,000 residents at the time, he needed to get additional men from Dion O’Banion’s North Side gang. Certainly Capone’s gang was larger than the Outfit in 1960 while Cicero was much smaller in population than the five Outfit wards.
Allegations the Outfit manipulated the Teamsters or other unions nationally are equally implausible. Individual Cosa Nostra crime families generally controlled local chapters of unions, rather than the national union. Therefore, the Outfit could not command union officials from the entire country to do its bidding. More important, Teamsters’ boss Jimmy Hoffa despised the Kennedys and publicly endorsed Richard Nixon, eliminating the possibility this union worked for John Kennedy.
It is also difficult to believe that Joseph Kennedy met with a notorious gangster under investigation by a Senate committee his two sons were associated with. If he had been seen, overheard or linked to Giancana, the damage to John Kennedy’s campaign would have been immeasurable. Even a hint of such a meeting, leaked by someone involved, would have been damaging. Also, it is hard to comprehend how the Outfit, having been attacked by the McClellan Committee, would trust the Kennedys. In fact, Brennan reports two days after the election that John Kennedy was going to crack down hard on organised crime, especially the Outfit in co-operation with Chicago’s police superintendent, as an outgrowth of his activities with the McClellan Committee hearings.
Furthermore, the credibility of several individuals who have made these claims is at best questionable. Organised crime operates with the same degree of secrecy as major intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Only those who absolutely “need to know” are informed at the time about particular operations. The average full member of the Outfit would not have known the information the Giancanas claim to have known, much less Chuck Giancana, who was only a lowly Mob associate. Moreover, the Giancanas’ book is not taken seriously by well informed students of the Chicago Outfit. In it the authors claim Sam Giancana was involved in every major organised crime event in Chicago from his adolescent years onward, even though most of their assertions are contradicted by known facts or are unsupported by other evidence.
The same point applies even more strongly to the wife of Murray Humphreys. In the completely male world of the Cosa Nostra, members do not share information with females, including wives. In fact, female relatives of gangsters make remarks such as, “I’m a girl. They never told me anything.” Certainly union leaders would have refused to talk business with Humphreys if a woman or non-Outfit member were present. If Humphreys had even suggested to his superiors that his wife attend business meetings – much less that she work with him – they would have decided he was insane and likely killed him and her also.
Bob McDonnell is similarly lacking in credibility. A disbarred attorney who was a compulsive drinker and uncontrollable gambler, McDonnell borrowed heavily from Outfit associated loan shark Sam DeStefano. When he was unable to pay his debts, DeStefano put McDonnell to work for him, including having him carry two dead bodies from his basement. It is difficult to find informed, unbiased individuals, especially retired Chicago police officers who worked on organised crime, who place faith in statements by Robert McDonnell.