Vito Genovese the worst boss?

[Angelo Santino]

It might not have been an all or nothing thing. Fact is Costello and Genovese worked together longer than they had it out, same goes for Mangano and Anastasia. Mafia relationships are very complex and more often than not you can find evidence of people at social functions with their die-hard enemies a few years earlier. They are friends until they are not. There's even photos of Al Capone smiling alongside either Tony Lombardo or Mike Merlo before everything went down.

The Genovese Brugad, since the 20's, did not have The Power resting on the shoulders of one individual, everybody who held an admin position was influential unto themselves. I think Costello would win against Bonanno if someone were to size the two up in a "most powerful boss" in the 50's referencing all the political and gambling connections. I would argue that Joe B had more personal control over his family if we were to factor in his ability to make/break people. He could go to Jersey and break whoever they had there without reprisal, could Costello go to Jersey and break Richie the Boot without facing a mutiny?

You have to give the FBI credit for seeing the opportunity to take something that law enforcement known about for years and present to the public in a way that gained their attention (and moved politics towards FBI funding.) The FBN up until that point was just as significant if not more so than the FBI at the time. And you had the SS before that. Law enforcement was aware of the Mafia in the USA since the 1890's, but many of them really didn't know what they were dealing with.

The concept of Organized Crime in the early 1900's was argued over semantics of whether or not someone 'planned' a crime in advance or if three people conspire a criminal act. RICO and public awareness came much later.

PS: The Last Testament of Luciano was invoked. You'll want to discount it or pretend you are reading fiction. Gosch attributed many things to Luciano that cannot be confirmed he actually said that. Luciano died and the man filled in the blanks. If you need a further explanation of that search Antiliar's posts and I believe he even published an article on why it should be discounted.

[DPG]

There is an Informer issue completely dedicated to Charlie Lucky that has numerous in-depth article on Luciano. The artile by antiliar you mentioned was published in the issue. It is put together with great care and goes through the book 'claim by claim' or chapter by chapter explaining away 95+% of the book as sensationalized bullshit.

When I first joined rd and was basically a Wikipedia brainwashed fan boy, Luciano was my main interest. Ill never forget a poster, who had no source whatsoever, making the claim that Luciano was present when Capone had his face slashed. Not only was he present but also offered Capone his hat to catch the blood streaming from his face and then drove him to the hospital. Lol I always got a good laugh outta that.

[maxiestern11]

Frank Costello was a powerhouse in his own right. And sorely needed by the Family. But I think his base power came from Luciano who tapped him as his “acting boss” while in prison and after getting deported.... the family thrived under Frank because he wasn’t greedy. He had so many of his own rackets going.. but between the two, Vito was the more powerful, feared and sought the boss seat more. I Don’t think he even had to shoot Frank for Frank to relinquish the seat. And at that time you are correct IMO, Bonanno as a singular Family Boss (for decades) was more powerful than both at that point in time.

[Charlie]

Costello as the sole leader on the street, might not have been anything beyond Consigliere. We can call him an Acting Boss now as we have a clear understanding of the term but I'm not sure it existed back then. Which could further explain why the crew bosses were given such a free reign and were akin to mini-bosses themselves, as opposed to say the Bonannos where everyone served at Joe's behest as supreme lord.

Valachi addresses this precise situation in The Real Thing when he speaks about Luciano in jail then in exile and mentions a formal process to 'elect' Costello acting boss: ''He was still boss all the time he was away. After he went away Willie Moore in Fort Lee, New Jersey, was acting boss for a while then they elected Frank Costello to act as boss but only acting boss until Charlie sent word in the early fifties that he had resigned and that made Frank Costello automatically Boss''

Luciano still being titular head until the early fifties I've only read from Valachi.
About Genovese, it seems, still from Valachi, that Luciano was a very distant, aloof kind of guy who pretty much only socialized with a select crew of people. The feeling one get from reading the Valachi Papers is that Genovese was, for all intents and purposes, the boss on the streets and was given wide latitude to act and control the family crews on Luciano's behalf.

[B.]

Along the lines of what Christie has said, the original purpose of the underboss looks to have been what we now call "street boss".

In addition to Vito Genovese, some examples of contemporaries:

- Tommy Lucchese was the one running the organization for Gagliano.
- Frank Garafolo and later John Morale did the same for Joe Bonanno. (Some early LE reports even have Garafolo as the "boss" of the "Castellammarese Gang.")
- Magliocco for Profaci.
- In Philadelphia, underboss Marco Reginelli was the one running the organization by all accounts.

Bosses were incredibly busy with political matters, especially the Commission members, who traveled frequently and were responsible for handling the affairs of the entire country. I'm reminded of the bug transcript where Joe Zerilli says he is so busy with Commission business that he has no time to handle his own affairs.

Throw in the added need for insulation from crimes and publicity and it makes sense why the boss would be too busy to run the organization and need the underboss to be the "street boss" long before the RICO era. It may have even been actively discouraged throughout Cosa Nostra for a boss to be too "hands on", as we have an account of Salvatore Sabella being deposed as boss for his direct participation in a murder and subsequent high-publicity arrest.

Not an exact science, as I'm sure you could name exceptions, especially in smaller families around the US, but I do think our idea of underboss has shifted away from what it once was, just like it has with consigliere, where we now see the underboss more as a rival leader or separate power who needs to be appeased, or in some cases simply as the boss's stooge, rather than someone who is powerful in his own right and trusted with running the organization on the boss's behalf. I'm sure a large reason for this is the heavily publicized Gambino-Castellano/Dellacroce relationship. You can see it in the way people have speculated about Amuso/Crea over the years as well, i.e. some constant power battle, Bronx vs. Brooklyn.

You also see how it's colored the way people talk about Anthony Casso, who people say was the one "pulling the strings" behind Amuso like it was purely a Machiavellian plot, but how was his role as underboss different from Tommy Lucchese? That family had precedent with a powerful underboss who ran the family at the street level and by all accounts Amuso was on the same page as Casso.

This has led to a lot of the confusion around Gigante and Salerno, too, where Salerno gets called "front boss" when it appears he actually carried out the traditional duties of an underboss much like Vito Genovese, Lucchese, Garafolo, etc. did in the earlier generations. Cafaro is a great source to have but his information doesn't paint a perfect picture by any means and adds to the confusion as much as it clears some things up. I can't help but feel the Gigante and Salerno situation has been overcomplicated, taking into consideration the traditional role of the underboss.

--

With the Gambinos, the size of the family may have required more factional representation in the admin than the other families' examples I gave, hence Mangano/Anastasia and Gambino/Dellacroce. You have accounts of family members getting upset when Castellano replaced Dellacroce with his own guy, Bilotti, showing there was an expectation in that family for the underboss to be from another faction.

In the Bonanno family on the other hand you had Massino promote his brother-in-law to underboss; in the Colombos you had both Persico brothers as boss and consigliere, plus their man Langella as underboss; the Luccheses as mentioned had Amuso/Casso who were from the same crew. All of this in the same general period where the Gambinos were getting upset about factions not being represented in the admin.

The difference? There was more historical precedent in those smaller families for the underboss to be the boss's representative and not the leader of another faction. Look at the examples I gave at the start of the thread... they are the exact same families as the ones I listed in the last paragraph decades apart.

--

The Genovese family is interesting because they were large and had distinct factions like the Gambino family, but for the most part this factionalism didn't disrupt the administration, except when Genovese had Costello shot. Later murders like acting admin members Strollo and Eboli seem to have had as much to do with their own faction turning on them as they did other groups.

Genovese didn't try to usurp the boss spot until Costello had been official boss for a number of years. You'd think he would have tried to kill Costello in the period immediately after Moretti was killed, but it seems Genovese had no interest in usurping the top spot when Luciano still had influence.

Valachi, who had an agenda against Genovese, along with the media, also paint a picture of Genovese as if he was constantly making efforts to undercut Costello's power, which have some truth, but we also see glimpses of a more objective truth in other places.

For one, Valachi's theory that the Moretti murder was a Machiavellian plot by Genovese has been proven wrong. CI Frank Bompensiero admitted to the FBI that the Moretti murder plot originated in California, when a treasury agent close to Moretti made comments to Bompensiero indicating that someone in the mafia was actively feeding info. Bompensiero and Jack Dragna took this claim to their Commission rep Tommy Lucchese who started a Commission investigation that found Moretti guilty. Genovese may have supported the campaign against Moretti once it was underway, but it began with the Los Angeles family, was taken to the Commission by Lucchese, and ultimately approved by Costello. At what point does Genovese become responsible?

There's also the Carfagno murder, which is popularly said to have happened because he didn't fall in line with the Genovese regime after Costello was taken down, but it appears more complicated than that once we get into the details. Carfagno's murder was reportedly ordered because he had disparaged Jerry Catena to other family members after Catena failed to show up to a meeting with Carfagno, though this may have been a deliberate trick designed to make Carfagno tie his own noose. However, Carfagno was extremely close to Genovese's top captain Tony Strollo and the same account indicates that Carfagno's murder was delayed because Strollo was often with him. Strollo's relationship with Carfagno was reported to have been one factor in Strollo's fall from grace some years later. While there is truth to Carfagno being at odds with Genovese, he was close friends with Genovese's top loyalist and this relationship got in the way of the murder, plus it was the Catena angle that was used as an excuse for the murder, so the story isn't as cut and dry as "he was a Costello guy who didn't come in, so we gonna hit him!"

I don't feel that we have anything resembling an accurate view into the Costello regime and Genovese's interaction with Costello. Valachi seemed to know relatively little outside of the crews that he actively did business with, i.e. the Greenwich Village and 116th street crews, and throughout his career he seems continually clueless about mafia politics, often to his own detriment. At one point Valachi was even receiving orders from his superiors via Vinnie Mauro, a fellow Strollo soldier he had proposed for membership, which speaks for itself.

We also know from the DeCarlo tapes that some guys that get labeled Genovese faction members appear to have split their loyalties soon after Genovese went to prison. This would go against the idea that the Genovese family leadership structure between 1969-1985 was part of some "master plan" by Genovese; he didn't have enough time on the streets and may have lost too much influence in prison to have created some ingenious leadership model the family would follow for the next 15+ years. It does speak to his credit that he kept his boss title and the family didn't devolve into infighting, which leads to the next point...

-

What's most significant to me about the Luciano regime is that both the boss and underboss were off the streets of NYC for as long as they were and they still kept their titles and influence, especially in the 1930s and 40s when it was rare to have a mafia leader away for so long, especially the top two leaders in one family. This is commonplace in the age of RICO, but back then there wasn't much precedent. Follow that up with Vito Genovese spending most of his reign as boss in prison after he took over, and we can see that the Genovese family more often than not had an absentee boss who maintained power from afar long before that was the norm. Depending on whether you see Morello as more of an early Genovese or Lucchese boss, you could also add him to the mix, though he appears to have lost or given up his position as boss at some point during his incarceration.

This may have actually helped set the Genovese up to handle factionalism and leadership issues later on. By having absentee bosses during some of their most formative years, they got used to the idea of decentralized power and it placed less importance on official arrangements. This wouldn't have been by design or some "master plan" like some people want it to be, but just how they learned to operate and perhaps they played to their strengths when possible.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Great conversation all.

Props to B. Outstanding as per standard.

[Angelo Santino]

Along the lines of what Christie has said, the original purpose of the underboss looks to have been what we now call "street boss".

In addition to Vito Genovese, some examples of contemporaries:

- Tommy Lucchese was the one running the organization for Gagliano.
- Frank Garafolo and later John Morale did the same for Joe Bonanno. (Some early LE reports even have Garafolo as the "boss" of the "Castellammarese Gang.")
- Magliocco for Profaci.
- In Philadelphia, underboss Marco Reginelli was the one running the organization by all accounts.

Bosses were incredibly busy with political matters, especially the Commission members, who traveled frequently and were responsible for handling the affairs of the entire country. I'm reminded of the bug transcript where Joe Zerilli says he is so busy with Commission business that he has no time to handle his own affairs.

Throw in the added need for insulation from crimes and publicity and it makes sense why the boss would be too busy to run the organization and need the underboss to be the "street boss" long before the RICO era. It may have even been actively discouraged throughout Cosa Nostra for a boss to be too "hands on", as we have an account of Salvatore Sabella being deposed as boss for his direct participation in a murder and subsequent high-publicity arrest.

Not an exact science, as I'm sure you could name exceptions, especially in smaller families around the US, but I do think our idea of underboss has shifted away from what it once was, just like it has with consigliere, where we now see the underboss more as a rival leader or separate power who needs to be appeased, or in some cases simply as the boss's stooge, rather than someone who is powerful in his own right and trusted with running the organization on the boss's behalf. I'm sure a large reason for this is the heavily publicized Gambino-Castellano/Dellacroce relationship. You can see it in the way people have speculated about Amuso/Crea over the years as well, i.e. some constant power battle, Bronx vs. Brooklyn.

You also see how it's colored the way people talk about Anthony Casso, who people say was the one "pulling the strings" behind Amuso like it was purely a Machiavellian plot, but how was his role as underboss different from Tommy Lucchese? That family had precedent with a powerful underboss who ran the family at the street level and by all accounts Amuso was on the same page as Casso.

This has led to a lot of the confusion around Gigante and Salerno, too, where Salerno gets called "front boss" when it appears he actually carried out the traditional duties of an underboss much like Vito Genovese, Lucchese, Garafolo, etc. did in the earlier generations. Cafaro is a great source to have but his information doesn't paint a perfect picture by any means and adds to the confusion as much as it clears some things up. I can't help but feel the Gigante and Salerno situation has been overcomplicated, taking into consideration the traditional role of the underboss.

--

With the Gambinos, the size of the family may have required more factional representation in the admin than the other families' examples I gave, hence Mangano/Anastasia and Gambino/Dellacroce. You have accounts of family members getting upset when Castellano replaced Dellacroce with his own guy, Bilotti, showing there was an expectation in that family for the underboss to be from another faction.

In the Bonanno family on the other hand you had Massino promote his brother-in-law to underboss; in the Colombos you had both Persico brothers as boss and consigliere, plus their man Langella as underboss; the Luccheses as mentioned had Amuso/Casso who were from the same crew. All of this in the same general period where the Gambinos were getting upset about factions not being represented in the admin.

The difference? There was more historical precedent in those smaller families for the underboss to be the boss's representative and not the leader of another faction. Look at the examples I gave at the start of the thread... they are the exact same families as the ones I listed in the last paragraph decades apart.

--

The Genovese family is interesting because they were large and had distinct factions like the Gambino family, but for the most part this factionalism didn't disrupt the administration, except when Genovese had Costello shot. Later murders like acting admin members Strollo and Eboli seem to have had as much to do with their own faction turning on them as they did other groups.

Genovese didn't try to usurp the boss spot until Costello had been official boss for a number of years. You'd think he would have tried to kill Costello in the period immediately after Moretti was killed, but it seems Genovese had no interest in usurping the top spot when Luciano still had influence.

Valachi, who had an agenda against Genovese, along with the media, also paint a picture of Genovese as if he was constantly making efforts to undercut Costello's power, which have some truth, but we also see glimpses of a more objective truth in other places.

For one, Valachi's theory that the Moretti murder was a Machiavellian plot by Genovese has been proven wrong. CI Frank Bompensiero admitted to the FBI that the Moretti murder plot originated in California, when a treasury agent close to Moretti made comments to Bompensiero indicating that someone in the mafia was actively feeding info. Bompensiero and Jack Dragna took this claim to their Commission rep Tommy Lucchese who started a Commission investigation that found Moretti guilty. Genovese may have supported the campaign against Moretti once it was underway, but it began with the Los Angeles family, was taken to the Commission by Lucchese, and ultimately approved by Costello. At what point does Genovese become responsible?

There's also the Carfagno murder, which is popularly said to have happened because he didn't fall in line with the Genovese regime after Costello was taken down, but it appears more complicated than that once we get into the details. Carfagno's murder was reportedly ordered because he had disparaged Jerry Catena to other family members after Catena failed to show up to a meeting with Carfagno, though this may have been a deliberate trick designed to make Carfagno tie his own noose. However, Carfagno was extremely close to Genovese's top captain Tony Strollo and the same account indicates that Carfagno's murder was delayed because Strollo was often with him. Strollo's relationship with Carfagno was reported to have been one factor in Strollo's fall from grace some years later. While there is truth to Carfagno being at odds with Genovese, he was close friends with Genovese's top loyalist and this relationship got in the way of the murder, plus it was the Catena angle that was used as an excuse for the murder, so the story isn't as cut and dry as "he was a Costello guy who didn't come in, so we gonna hit him!"

I don't feel that we have anything resembling an accurate view into the Costello regime and Genovese's interaction with Costello. Valachi seemed to know relatively little outside of the crews that he actively did business with, i.e. the Greenwich Village and 116th street crews, and throughout his career he seems continually clueless about mafia politics, often to his own detriment. At one point Valachi was even receiving orders from his superiors via Vinnie Mauro, a fellow Strollo soldier he had proposed for membership, which speaks for itself.

We also know from the DeCarlo tapes that some guys that get labeled Genovese faction members appear to have split their loyalties soon after Genovese went to prison. This would go against the idea that the Genovese family leadership structure between 1969-1985 was part of some "master plan" by Genovese; he didn't have enough time on the streets and may have lost too much influence in prison to have created some ingenious leadership model the family would follow for the next 15+ years. It does speak to his credit that he kept his boss title and the family didn't devolve into infighting, which leads to the next point...

-

What's most significant to me about the Luciano regime is that both the boss and underboss were off the streets of NYC for as long as they were and they still kept their titles and influence, especially in the 1930s and 40s when it was rare to have a mafia leader away for so long, especially the top two leaders in one family. This is commonplace in the age of RICO, but back then there wasn't much precedent. Follow that up with Vito Genovese spending most of his reign as boss in prison after he took over, and we can see that the Genovese family more often than not had an absentee boss who maintained power from afar long before that was the norm. Depending on whether you see Morello as more of an early Genovese or Lucchese boss, you could also add him to the mix, though he appears to have lost or given up his position as boss at some point during his incarceration.

This may have actually helped set the Genovese up to handle factionalism and leadership issues later on. By having absentee bosses during some of their most formative years, they got used to the idea of decentralized power and it placed less importance on official arrangements. This wouldn't have been by design or some "master plan" like some people want it to be, but just how they learned to operate and perhaps they played to their strengths when possible.

That's alot to unwrap. All good points and observations.

I guess one thing we all must consider is that, while the structure remained the same, the way the Mafia functioned pre and post 1957-1964 are very different. Before the 50's, they were mostly free to congregate and socialize and mingle nationally. The FBN and local law enforcement knew of "something" but were quite limited to what they could do. They just kept tabs and compiled info and tried to enforce the law where they could, one was the Top Hoodlum Program.

But after the floodgates turned- Valalachi'd media spectacle, the FBI's empowerment and emerging legal powers had its impact. From that point we see the former supercrews split several ways, we see the mob slowly grappling with the increasing issue that the social club/saloon went from being a safe spot to a place of liability. Acting Bosses, side bosses, etc etc. Members who were known as rackets men are suddenly approached by agents naming off their rank and whom they associate with. The Mafia wasn't ready for it, it was always a social organization who's power came from hiding right out in public.

[CabriniGreen]

Mob guys are no different than the rest of the population- each are free to have their own political affiliation/beliefs. In fact, Joe Bonanno and his admin members seemed to be at odds politically, didn't appear to interrupt their crime family duties. Vito Cascio Ferro was even a part of something or other.

From what the facts appear to be, Gen was under from 1931 and kept his position while in Italy, reclaiming it upon his return. If that is indeed the case (and apart from Moretti in an acting position I've seen nothing new to indicate a strong person in that position during that time) it would speak to A) his power and B) how the Gen family conducted itself at that time. As per Gentile, in 1936 when Luciano was taken off the streets, Genovese, by default, became the top guy but it's not stated that he was designated Acting Boss or if that interim position even existed.

Remember, the original role of an Underboss is to be an aid and take over in the event of a Boss' absence, akin to a VP. Acting positions where an Underboss becomes acting and someone else becomes Acting Under really didn't become a thing until the 50's. But then the Genoveses were a 300-450 man group so it makes sense why that would happen there as opposed to a smaller 30 member group. And from 1935-1946, Costello as the sole leader on the street, might not have been anything beyond Consigliere. We can call him an Acting Boss now as we have a clear understanding of the term but I'm not sure it existed back then. Which could further explain why the crew bosses were given such a free reign and were akin to mini-bosses themselves, as opposed to say the Bonannos where everyone served at Joe's behest as supreme lord.

I don't put much emphasis on the compaesanismo post-30's, by this point most guys seen themselves as Italian and aside from the Sicilian mafia aristocrats like Bonanno, most of your guys (like Valachi) were New York American renditions, which is why Our Thing or Our Organization conveyed an all-Italian inclusive. Genovese, like Anastasia and other non-Sicilians who assumed positions of power, conducted themselves in accordance with the mafia politics of the day, they weren't looking to Camorra'cize anything. And Genovese's time in Italy recorded no contact with criminal organizations, only black market activities related to the war.

You read a lot of Machiavelli?

[Lupara]

Allways wondered why the fam wasnt labeled as Luciano Fam

Because Genovese took over and renamed it his own family same as Colombo did

The families were never meant to have names. There was a purposeful level of ambiguity involved with knowing who was with who. You had to be in the know to figure it out. They didn't go around saying 'Hey we're the Genovese family' the families got their media labels from the Valachi Hearings (with the exception of the Colombos) as Camo and Frank stated above not from bosses sending out memos with name change orders a la Massino.

But over the years after the Valachi hearing mobsters themselves started referring to these names too.

EDIT: Wiseguy beat me too it. Hey Wiseguy, we agree!

Let's cherish this moment after all the hard battles we fought.

[Lupara]

Great conversation all.

Props to B. Outstanding as per standard.

Agreed. High-end thread.

[Angelo Santino]

Mob guys are no different than the rest of the population- each are free to have their own political affiliation/beliefs. In fact, Joe Bonanno and his admin members seemed to be at odds politically, didn't appear to interrupt their crime family duties. Vito Cascio Ferro was even a part of something or other.

From what the facts appear to be, Gen was under from 1931 and kept his position while in Italy, reclaiming it upon his return. If that is indeed the case (and apart from Moretti in an acting position I've seen nothing new to indicate a strong person in that position during that time) it would speak to A) his power and B) how the Gen family conducted itself at that time. As per Gentile, in 1936 when Luciano was taken off the streets, Genovese, by default, became the top guy but it's not stated that he was designated Acting Boss or if that interim position even existed.

Remember, the original role of an Underboss is to be an aid and take over in the event of a Boss' absence, akin to a VP. Acting positions where an Underboss becomes acting and someone else becomes Acting Under really didn't become a thing until the 50's. But then the Genoveses were a 300-450 man group so it makes sense why that would happen there as opposed to a smaller 30 member group. And from 1935-1946, Costello as the sole leader on the street, might not have been anything beyond Consigliere. We can call him an Acting Boss now as we have a clear understanding of the term but I'm not sure it existed back then. Which could further explain why the crew bosses were given such a free reign and were akin to mini-bosses themselves, as opposed to say the Bonannos where everyone served at Joe's behest as supreme lord.

I don't put much emphasis on the compaesanismo post-30's, by this point most guys seen themselves as Italian and aside from the Sicilian mafia aristocrats like Bonanno, most of your guys (like Valachi) were New York American renditions, which is why Our Thing or Our Organization conveyed an all-Italian inclusive. Genovese, like Anastasia and other non-Sicilians who assumed positions of power, conducted themselves in accordance with the mafia politics of the day, they weren't looking to Camorra'cize anything. And Genovese's time in Italy recorded no contact with criminal organizations, only black market activities related to the war.

You read a lot of Machiavelli?

No, why?

[Angelo Santino]

Allways wondered why the fam wasnt labeled as Luciano Fam

Because Genovese took over and renamed it his own family same as Colombo did

The families were never meant to have names. There was a purposeful level of ambiguity involved with knowing who was with who. You had to be in the know to figure it out. They didn't go around saying 'Hey we're the Genovese family' the families got their media labels from the Valachi Hearings (with the exception of the Colombos) as Camo and Frank stated above not from bosses sending out memos with name change orders a la Massino.

But over the years after the Valachi hearing mobsters themselves started referring to these names too.

EDIT: Wiseguy beat me too it. Hey Wiseguy, we agree!

Let's cherish this moment after all the hard battles we fought.

Yeah. Generally speaking the informal names would be the location be it Chicago or Pagliarelli. "I gotta go see Buffalo" doesn't mean recreation in mob lingo. The case in NY which involved multiple families seemed to refer to it's current boss as so and so's family. "He is with Tom Dibella's Family" or "There's Carl Gambino and then Tony Ducks has his own Family." A recent example of this, I recall one GL article which quoted some wiseguy saying something along the lines of "Chin and then Joe's Family" in terms of who he considered the most powerful. It was 2-3 years up until the time Massino got indicted.

Had the McClellan Committee occured 10 years earlier, they likely would have been called the Costello, Anastasia etc Families. In other words, certain misconceptions written like "Castellano decided to carry on the name Gambino Family out of respect for Carlo" or "named after their founding or significant bosses" holds no factual basis.

There's been much made of "west side" as one street name, Junior's Crew was another. I don't really recall members using the Public names themselves. Joe Massino said they "renamed" it but it wasn't like the members ever used Bonanno as an official name.

[Villain]

Back in the old days Chicago Outfit members mostly reffered to their organization simply as the "Clique" while during one period LE and the media labeled them as the "Guzik-Fischetti-Accardo syndicate" lol or more often as the "Capone mob". Some Chi members even used the term "Outfit" when they reffered to certain crews within their own organization

Btw maybe i missed it but did Valachi ever gave any specific info on the Outfit since he was a Genovese soldier and all that?

[motorfab]

Back in the old days Chicago Outfit members mostly reffered to their organization simply as the "Clique" while during one period LE and the media labeled them as the "Guzik-Fischetti-Accardo syndicate" lol or more often as the "Capone mob". Some Chi members even used the term "Outfit" when they reffered to certain crews within their own organization

Btw maybe i missed it but did Valachi ever gave any specific info on the Outfit since he was a Genovese soldier and all that?

I doubt. On the 1963 charts despite the caption "* identified by Valachi", nobody has the * next to him. I think the news comes mainly from feds, but I can be wrong

[CabriniGreen]

It might not have been an all or nothing thing. Fact is Costello and Genovese worked together longer than they had it out, same goes for Mangano and Anastasia. Mafia relationships are very complex and more often than not you can find evidence of people at social functions with their die-hard enemies a few years earlier. They are friends until they are not. There's even photos of Al Capone smiling alongside either Tony Lombardo or Mike Merlo before everything went down.

The Genovese Brugad, since the 20's, did not have The Power resting on the shoulders of one individual, everybody who held an admin position was influential unto themselves. I think Costello would win against Bonanno if someone were to size the two up in a "most powerful boss" in the 50's referencing all the political and gambling connections. I would argue that Joe B had more personal control over his family if we were to factor in his ability to make/break people. He could go to Jersey and break whoever they had there without reprisal, could Costello go to Jersey and break Richie the Boot without facing a mutiny?

You have to give the FBI credit for seeing the opportunity to take something that law enforcement known about for years and present to the public in a way that gained their attention (and moved politics towards FBI funding.) The FBN up until that point was just as significant if not more so than the FBI at the time. And you had the SS before that. Law enforcement was aware of the Mafia in the USA since the 1890's, but many of them really didn't know what they were dealing with.

The concept of Organized Crime in the early 1900's was argued over semantics of whether or not someone 'planned' a crime in advance or if three people conspire a criminal act. RICO and public awareness came much later.

PS: The Last Testament of Luciano was invoked. You'll want to discount it or pretend you are reading fiction. Gosch attributed many things to Luciano that cannot be confirmed he actually said that. Luciano died and the man filled in the blanks. If you need a further explanation of that search Antiliar's posts and I believe he even published an article on why it should be discounted.

This is the passage I meant to highlight.....

The way you describe how Bonnano had the authority to make or break people at will, whereas if Costello tried to do that to a Boiardo, it would have been a problem....

Its exactly how Machiavelli describes Principalities, and I use it often to gauge the power of gangsters.....