Understanding Chicago

[B.]

I think where a lot of the confusion (and resulting debate) came from in the past was people assuming those differences with the Outfit continued longer than they did. There's a reason why, whenver the subject of the influence of non-Italians in Chicago comes up, the names of guys who have been dead for decades are the examples.

I purposely haven't brought Lansky into the discussion, but he could be used similarly. By all accounts he was on a similar level with the Genovese family as the top Chicago associates. Lansky has also been a source of debate, as he was technically an associate but we all know Lansky was a leader in his own right who had higher status than virtually all members. I wouldn't use Lansky, nor Watts / Rockman, to say that the Genovese, Gambino, or Cleveland families were fundamentally different organizations at any point, though. Certain individuals simply earned their authority, member or not, and when they died/retired that was it.

I posted this in another thread but feel it should be referenced here, as well. This is information concerning a large making ceremony in Chicago in 1956:

A top echelon informant in the Chicago office provided this information to agents in 1966:

According to the informant, about 25 to 30 individuals were "made" into the Outfit at this ceremony. Every group made about four or five individuals each, including Chicago Heights and Skid Caruso's group. Other individuals that were mentioned by the informant as being "made" were Anthony Maenza (Caruso), Vincent Inserro (not specified but probably Daddano), and James Allegretti (Prio). Allegretti's induction was apparently controversial, as several individuals who had done "heavy" work for the Outfit had been passed over and that Allegretti had been made solely on his connections. Carlo Colianni was apparently influential in Allegretti's making.

The informant related that Ferriola, who had been sponsored by Daddano in 1956, had since transferred to the Buccieri group as he had angered Daddano over a gambling raid that Ferriola had allegedly been responsible for.

Additionally, members stay with their sponsors until their sponsor dies, although there were apparently exceptions, as seen above. Likewise, sponsors are responsible for their members and must side with them even over the sponsor's own family. If a made member is to be hit, all other made members of the Outfit must vote on the hit, except for those members belonging to the same group as the target. Made members must make their sponsor aware of their activities at all times, even when they choose to go on vacation.

I looked at some of the names which were cited in the report but not mentioned specifically by the informant (probably to protect his identity). I've therefore made a rough estimate of others who were made at this same ceremony. The body of the report has ~6 names redacted, although the way in which it is structured seems to infer that they were all made under the same group or sponsor:

Charles English
Sam English
Leonard Gianola
Albert Frabotta
1 Unknown

Others referenced in the report whom I believe to be "group" leaders or sponsors at this time are listed below. The informant does not specifically say that a group leader had to sponsor a member into the Outfit. It could then be inferred that an existing member (with the group leader's approval) could sponsor an individual. A couple of these names could also have been made at this time, although all of them had Outfit reputations prior to 1956 that probably excludes them.

Fiore Buccieri
Phil Alderisio [Antilliar believes he could have been made at this ceremony from separate files]
Ross Prio
William Daddano
Joseph DiVarco
Sam Battaglia
Frank Caruso

I saw this report earlier and I'm thankful you transcribed it here. Very similar to descriptions of the NYC/NJ ceremonies who also left out some of the traditional components (i.e. gun, knife, saint card/burning) while maintaining the same basic protocol and system of mafia membership. Also similar to the account given by the "secretly Jewish" Chicago member(?) who described the same protocol taking place for inductions minus the gun/knife, blood, and card burning.

Also they were only Italian names, so there was still an emphasis on maintaining a certain level of mafia protocol within Chicago despite allowing non-Italians to help direct the activities of the organization (which it's important to note are technically separate from the organization itself). If Chicago saw itself as one big organization that included non-Italian members for its own internal purposes, why wouldn't some of the non-Italians have attended this Chicago-only event? There is no need to tell Detroit or Kansas City about the ceremony, they just have to introduce the new Italian members as amico nostra when the time comes, not give a blow-by-blow of the ceremony and who attended, so if Chicago played by its own rules why would they follow Cosa Nostra protocol at a ceremony attended only by their own members?

When you and I spoke on Chicago you once raised the suspicion that Chicago in the 1970's "adopted" more LCN traditions to be closer to NY. B. kinda makes a good case that in every other instance they were moving away.

The idea of Chicago adopting the gun/knife, blood, and card to impress New York later on doesn't make sense to me. That's their own internal business, so why would a Chicago leader approach a New York member and say "Hey buddy, we just started pricking fingers and using the gun and knife. Want to be friends?" Chicago had been a Cosa Nostra family with a seat on the Commission since 1931 and its members were recognized as amico nostra by New York going back to D'Andrea/Merlo and whoever preceded them.

Al Capone became amico nostra and dominated the organization in his own fashion, but he remained an amico nostra which is why both the election of Maranzano as boss of bosses and later the Commission elections were hosted by Chicago. New York never stopped recognizing Chicago members as amico nostra and if anything, Chicago sharing that they only recently adopted certain traditions in the 1970s/80s would only scare NYC away or cause controversy, not bring them closer. Gotti forced the DeCavalcantes to re-induct a decades-worth of new members when he found out they didn't use the gun/knife.

Chicago was probably inconsistent with traditions for the same reason NYC/NJ were inconsistent with ceremonial traditions -- it depended on who was running the family, conducting the ceremony, or the general circumstances of the time, not part of a political strategy. We also have accounts where the proposed members themselves were asked to bring the gun/knife (Philadelphia) or the props were ridiculous -- toilet paper being burned instead of a saint card. Let's not forget the ceremony Fratianno described that took place in a car.

I understand why Chicago's inconsistent induction practices seemed more important ten years ago. Research was more limited then and we falsely believed Chicago was unique in its inconsistent traditions. Now we know that even the most heavily Sicilian NYC/NJ families ignored the traditions when they saw fit spanning decades. Unless there is a member source who specifically says why Chicago was inconsistent with their ceremonies, I wouldn't put much weight on it. The important thing is that Italians were sponsored by other Italians who were then recognized as amico nostra (or another synonym) in Chicago.

That's a good point. Accardo was the top boss and policy maker after Ricca died, and he and Aiuppa were both of Sicilian ancestry. It would have been their decision to "normalize" the standard LCN ceremony. Ricca may have experienced two ceremonies. He may have been a Camorrista when he was young, then was probably one of the ten men made into Al Capone's original crew after Masseria made Capone. It may have been Masseria who skipped some of the formal ceremony, which Capone and his successors followed.

I completely agree

I do too! It makes much more sense that it was a relatively arbitrary decision made by the leadership at any given time. The important part is the end result -- the inducted member became amico nostra / confratello / friend of ours / made guy / buttonman / stromberger.

[Confederate]

I hope you don't mind me further commenting in this thread you started since I am not a High Level Researcher like yourself.

Lansky was never a "member" of any New York Family because in New York, the word "members" meant ONLY the Italian made guys. In Chicago, based upon research already shown several times, Non-Italian men like Humphreys, Alex, Pierce, Kruse etc. were considered "members" of the Outfit, but NOT the National LCN. The entire Outfit (Syndicate) "encompassed" the LCN Outfit. That concept is either accepted or rejected at this point or this thread can go on for another 300 pages.

[Angelo Santino]

I think where a lot of the confusion (and resulting debate) came from in the past was people assuming those differences with the Outfit continued longer than they did. There's a reason why, whenver the subject of the influence of non-Italians in Chicago comes up, the names of guys who have been dead for decades are the examples.

I purposely haven't brought Lansky into the discussion, but he could be used similarly. By all accounts he was on a similar level with the Genovese family as the top Chicago associates. Lansky has also been a source of debate, as he was technically an associate but we all know Lansky was a leader in his own right who had higher status than virtually all members. I wouldn't use Lansky, nor Watts / Rockman, to say that the Genovese, Gambino, or Cleveland families were fundamentally different organizations at any point, though. Certain individuals simply earned their authority, member or not, and when they died/retired that was it.

Oddly in Bonanno's first draft didn't he say Lansky was the sole non-Italian member? Doesn't seem right to me.

According to Fratianno, Dragna was quoted as telling him that Lansky had his own "family" set up like the Italians. I remember discussing this with one researcher years ago who called it an oversimplification from someone (Fratianno) who wasn't familiar with how Jewish organized crime worked. Later on the book it's stated that Lansky was placed under the control of Jimmy Alo and "after fucking Charley Lucky was lucky he didn't get clippped."

When you and I spoke on Chicago you once raised the suspicion that Chicago in the 1970's "adopted" more LCN traditions to be closer to NY. B. kinda makes a good case that in every other instance they were moving away.

The idea of Chicago adopting the gun/knife, blood, and card to impress New York later on doesn't make sense to me. That's their own internal business, so why would a Chicago leader approach a New York member and say "Hey buddy, we just started pricking fingers and using the gun and knife. Want to be friends?" Chicago had been a Cosa Nostra family with a seat on the Commission since 1931 and its members were recognized as amico nostra by New York going back to D'Andrea/Merlo and whoever preceded them.

It doesn't make sense to me either but then it might not need to. It could be one of those things that was formally decided and we don't know about it. Or like you said, maybe it's overstated. You make a very good point that we have examples of different families who at various times have and have not used the ceremony. That's a very good point and you managed to connect that to Chicago quite well.

This goes into a whole line of questioning of why it sometimes was and then other times was not used. During Phila. wartime in the 90's we've seen evidence of Previte being told he was a member, we have Veasey being made with toilet paper. But in other groups it seems at various times they opted not to use it for no particular reason.

Al Capone became amico nostra and dominated the organization in his own fashion, but he remained an amico nostra which is why both the election of Maranzano as boss of bosses and later the Commission elections were hosted by Chicago. New York never stopped recognizing Chicago members as amico nostra and if anything, Chicago sharing that they only recently adopted certain traditions in the 1970s/80s would only scare NYC away or cause controversy, not bring them closer. Gotti forced the DeCavalcantes to re-induct a decades-worth of new members when he found out they didn't use the gun/knife.

Yes. Going outside of the ceremony argument and just focusing on the mafia membership status. You're correct that it had to be done the right way. The situation is very very similar to Merlino in Phila., rather than be just a large extortion group, they went through the motions to become members, giving them the power to take it from within. There's NEVER been a King Of King York situation where a non-member like Frank White (Christopher Walken) walks in and shoots the Italian Mafia boss Artie Clay and announces everyone come with him if they're tired of being ripped off, and half of the room shrugs and follows. Both Merlino and Capone went after their city's bosses only after they had that magical button, it legitimized them. Capone for all his noteriety, is spoken of by those who met him (Gentile, Bonanno) as a jovial friendly guy who appears to have been a politician in that world. Coming up in Brooklyn under Yale, he would have been familiar with the set up and likely already associated with it in some form or fashion.

I understand why Chicago's inconsistent induction practices seemed more important ten years ago. Research was more limited then and we falsely believed Chicago was unique in its inconsistent traditions. Now we know that even the most heavily Sicilian NYC/NJ families ignored the traditions when they saw fit spanning decades. Unless there is a member source who specifically says why Chicago was inconsistent with their ceremonies, I wouldn't put much weight on it. The important thing is that Italians were sponsored by other Italians who were then recognized as amico nostra (or another synonym) in Chicago.

It changes and keeps changing. In 2000 The Chicago ran the entire western united states and every remnant from LA to Denver was now a satellite crew. Later on after the DiFronzo/Lombardo who's who question, people were arguing some insane super structured hierarchy. I agree more information has come out now than ever before and maybe not on here, but Chicago is in serious need of a good De-Roemering. Every contemporary published source is influenced/tarnished by him. Ya got that pissant? Listen up pissant, you ain't nothing but a pissant...

Back to Capone, there was a transition from LoVerde to Capone in early 1931. Capone was off the streets by October. He had about a 10 month run as official Mafia Boss before going to prison. Within that time he would have had to have appointed an official administration and promoted/demoted captains. I don't know the ramifications of it to state this or that but we can imagine what that might have entailed based on Scarfo's and Merlino's reorganization during the beginning of their tenures.

Like Buffalo, there may have never been an official Consigliere. I've heard some sources state this. And during the Family Secrets trial it came out that the top two guys (what we could call boss and underboss) were #1 and #2.

I somehow suspect that whoever came after Capone likely deserves alot of credit for keeping things together.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to compare the territory of the Chicago Mafia with that of the Capone organization contrasted with post-1931.

[B.]

Just to clarify one more thing...

By the mid 60s Blasi was a low level soldier and Fratto was semi-retired.

You asked me about my thoughts on Blasi and Fratto, so I assumed you value their information given they are some of the only Chicago member sources we have. Do you believe they weren't reliable sources because of their status at the time they cooperated?

Oddly in Bonanno's first draft didn't he say Lansky was the sole non-Italian member? Doesn't seem right to me.

According to Fratianno, Dragna was quoted as telling him that Lansky had his own "family" set up like the Italians. I remember discussing this with one researcher years ago who called it an oversimplification from someone (Fratianno) who wasn't familiar with how Jewish organized crime worked. Later on the book it's stated that Lansky was placed under the control of Jimmy Alo and "after fucking Charley Lucky was lucky he didn't get clippped."

Lansky was the first non-Italian member of an NYC family, with Joe Watts being the second. 99% of members had no authority over them and both could give orders to Italian Cosa Nostra members, so they were clearly members of the New York organization but not the New York Cosa Nostra. I joke, but yeah, I was waiting to bring up Lansky because he is such an obvious example of someone who was everything a mafia leader was but technically an associate at the end of the day.

Like Buffalo, there may have never been an official Consigliere. I've heard some sources state this. And during the Family Secrets trial it came out that the top two guys (what we could call boss and underboss) were #1 and #2.

This is in the original post of this thread, but the source on this is Stefano Magaddino himself, recorded talking to two Bonanno leaders on his office bug. He says he didn't allow a consigliere in his family because it was an elected position and was therefore a rival to the boss's power. He felt that because the boss was elected, he represented the membership and it would only divide the power to have another elected leader as consigliere.

Also in the original post, Angelo Bruno was recorded on tape calling his consigliere the "rappresentante" of the Calabrians, who he had total authority over. Literally that meant representative, but as you know "rappresentante" was only used to refer to "boss" in a mafia context. Does that mean Angelo Bruno and his consigliere were co-bosses and the Philly family completely changed the power structure of Cosa Nostra? No, it just meant the Philly family had unique power dynamics and each had spheres of power that required cooperation. Not unlike Castellano and Dellacroce, which was worlds away from the relationship between Profaci and Magliocco, but both duos still used the same structure all of the other families used. Was Chicago fundamentally different from this with their "chairman" / boss or "co-boss" relationships? Maybe when we're talking about function, but it doesn't mean they fundamentally changed the structure of Cosa Nostra.

It's kind of like the DeCavalcantes having two underbosses in the 1960s. All we really have to go on is the DeCavalcante tapes, but that's the boss himself talking. We could say that because the DeCavalcantes stopped doing the traditional ceremony and had two underbosses, they were no longer Cosa Nostra and had their own thing going on in Elizabeth, but it's not true. We also don't know if they were just loose with their language. Maybe Frank Majuri was the acting underboss because LaSelva lived in Connecticut and couldn't be there every day, but for the sake of conversation DeCavalcante just called them both "underboss" without distinction and now we're stuck believing they had some unique power structure. I believe the same is true for Chicago and the confusion comes from their different terminology and power dynamics.

It seems like it would be over-complicated and exhausting to try and maintain two organizations, one for the Chicago locals and one to appease national Cosa Nostra politics:

"Okay, when we're in Chicago, we have a boss, co-boss, chairman, and a non-Italian guy who is a boss, too, then a bunch of territory bosses, who each have a few crew bosses, plus a bunch of members under them. We will also make you a member, but not have any kind of induction. But when you're talking to your friends in St. Louis, Detroit, or Los Angeles, make sure you tell them the chairman is the consigliere, the territory boss is a capodecina, the crew bosses are soldiers, and the members are associates. We'll also do an induction sometimes for the Italians so that NYC doesn't think anything is fishy. Make sure they know, too, that the non-Italian bosses are actually just associates. Especially you, Roselli!"

I joke again, but I go with Occam's Razor on this, with supporting evidence, that the simplest explanation is probably closer to the truth. The simplest explanation is they were a Cosa Nostra organization who, like other Cosa Nostra organizations, allowed certain non-Italian associates to help run the family's activities, but because the city of Chicago had more intermingling between ethnicities and thus more of these high-powered associates, there was a period where the bosses authorized some of these associates to supervise high-level activities, even those of members.

--

By the way, if anyone is sick of the non-Italian "membership" discussion, they can feel free to drop it at any time. There are many other points discussed in the original post that haven't been discussed as much if anyone wants to dig into those, especially the structure/ranks within the Chicago mafia itself.

I'm more than happy for this thread to eclipse the Buffalo/Ontario thread, but I'm not going to claim that I "won" or anything like that if anyone loses interest in the discussion and drops out. Don't worry about this being an endurance contest. I'm not out to sink anyone's battleship.

[Villain]

Chicago adopting the CN traditions during the 70s makes a lot of sense...it has already been explained at least 100 times and i wont do it again.

[B.]

Chicago adopting the CN traditions during the 70s makes a lot of sense...it has already been explained at least 100 times and i wont do it again.

At least 100? Damn, I must have missed 95 of them.

Good luck to you and your family during this crazy time. Take care.

[Villain]

Chicago adopting the CN traditions during the 70s makes a lot of sense...it has already been explained at least 100 times and i wont do it again.

At least 100? Damn, I must have missed 95 of them.

Good luck to you and your family during this crazy time. Take care.

Usually when i want to enter some new subject for which i dont have a clue about, FIRST i usually go through older posts of members who did tons of research on that same subject and know what are they talking about and AFTER that i ask them questions on whats what, and THEN i make a conclusion.

Thanks and same to you, best whishes to you and yours. Stay safe and stay smart. Cheers

[B.]

Chicago adopting the CN traditions during the 70s makes a lot of sense...it has already been explained at least 100 times and i wont do it again.

At least 100? Damn, I must have missed 95 of them.

Good luck to you and your family during this crazy time. Take care.

Usually when i want to enter some new subject which i dont have a clue about, i usually go through older posts of members who did tons of research on that same subject and know what are they talking about and AFTER that i ask them questions on whats what, and THEN i make a conclusion.

Thanks and same to you, best whishes to you and yours. Stay safe and stay smart. Cheers

Similarly, I recommend looking at the bigger picture of Cosa Nostra families across history / location. They are more similar than they are different and the more I learn about different groups, the closer they appear to be despite all of them having unique qualities (some more than others).

I have read (and appreciated) many of your posts and those from others on Chicago and I've read multiple books, many FBI reports, and have done other research into the Chicago family. I still wouldn't consider myself an expert, but many of these ideas have been stirring in my head for years and it's unfair to tell me I "don't have a clue" because I disagree with you on certain aspects of the organization, especially aspects that are open for interpretation and in some cases completely speculative. That doesn't mean I dismiss the entirety of the research you or anyone has done into Chicago, only the way some of that information is framed.

[Villain]

Chicago adopting the CN traditions during the 70s makes a lot of sense...it has already been explained at least 100 times and i wont do it again.

At least 100? Damn, I must have missed 95 of them.

Good luck to you and your family during this crazy time. Take care.

Usually when i want to enter some new subject which i dont have a clue about, i usually go through older posts of members who did tons of research on that same subject and know what are they talking about and AFTER that i ask them questions on whats what, and THEN i make a conclusion.

Thanks and same to you, best whishes to you and yours. Stay safe and stay smart. Cheers

Similarly, I recommend looking at the bigger picture of Cosa Nostra families across history / location. They are more similar than they are different and the more I learn about different groups, the closer they appear to be despite all of them having unique qualities (some more than others).

I have read (and appreciated) many of your posts and those from others on Chicago and I've read multiple books, many FBI reports, and have done other research into the Chicago family. I still wouldn't consider myself an expert, but many of these ideas have been stirring in my head for years and it's unfair to tell me I "don't have a clue" because I disagree with you on certain aspects of the organization, especially aspects that are open for interpretation and in some cases completely speculative. That doesn't mean I dismiss the entirety of the research you or anyone has done into Chicago, only the way some of that information is framed.

Framed? Youve been bashed with dozens of documents and infos regarding the high ranking non-Italians by every possible member from around who knows at least something on the Outfit, including me, and you still wont back down? Damn man people are laughing via pms and pls i want to keep my image for you as one of the best researchers around here....ok...they were complete CN organization, satisfied??? Lol I thought that you already sent me off with a "take care"...why are we still talking?!

[B.]

Anger in a Chicago thread is like snow in winter. Sometimes you have to wait for it, but it's coming and that first snowflake is so exciting before it piles up and gets dirty.

You responded with condescending comments, so I followed up. If my reputation is shattered by this discussion, I welcome it. I'd love to start again from nothing and have to earn the love and trust I shamelessly lost in the great "Understanding Chicago" thread of 2020. May your PM box be buzzing with messages made at my expense by everyone who agrees with you and may your laughter together fill you with mirth during these strange and dark times.

Our conversation can end right here as far as I'm concerned. This thread wasn't created for you alone and any discussion moving forward doesn't require your blessing.

Take care. Seriously this time. I mean it. Take care.

--

Back to the informant I mistook for Fratto:



Pretty interesting take, whether he snuck in as a member or was an associate. Can't imagine why he would share this information with the FBI unless he felt it to be true, as it would have no impact on his relationship with the FBI.

It wouldn't necessarily mean that significant non-Italians like Alex and Humphreys were any less respected for their ethnicity, as they proved themselves on an individual basis, only that as a general rule Italians were favored over non-Italians, which is backed up by the consistency of the Italian leadership before and after select non-Italian individuals came and went. If this source did in fact sneak in as a member, which could be the case given his knowledge of the induction process, history, and other internal matters, his true ethnic background would have more damning implications.



Anyone know the source of this one? It's mentioned in context with Valachi's information and includes a reference to someone explaining the way members are introduced between different families, so it would seem the person this source is referring to was a member.

Alex and Kruse are brought up no doubt because of their prominent roles in the Chicago underworld, otherwise their inability to take over the organization wouldn't have been mentioned by the source; i.e. the informant didn't need to specify that random non-Italian associate "John Smith" couldn't become a leader because it would be obvious, while he felt the need to specify this about Alex and Kruse because of their stature/importance. He wanted to make it clear that they couldn't officially take "power" within the Chicago mafia family. We know Alex and Kruse had a different type of power, but this was mentioned in context with Valachi's testimony and member introductions, so it's referring to their status within the mafia power structure.

[Villain]

Anger in a Chicago thread is like snow in winter. Sometimes you have to wait for it, but it's coming and that first snowflake is so exciting before it piles up and gets dirty.

You responded with condescending comments, so I followed up. If my reputation is shattered by this discussion, I welcome it. I'd love to start again from nothing and have to earn the love and trust I shamelessly lost in the great "Understanding Chicago" thread of 2020. May your PM box be buzzing with messages made at my expense by everyone who agrees with you and may your laughter together fill you with mirth during these strange and dark times.

Our conversation can end right here as far as I'm concerned. This thread wasn't created for you alone and any discussion moving forward doesn't require your blessing.

Take care. Seriously this time. I mean it. Take care.

Im obviously a thorn both in your eyes and in your lies right? No worries ill take care.

[B.]

I'm getting the impression that making someone an official LCN member within Chicago was a very privileged and rare event. It doesn't seem like they "made everyone and anyone" and more information has come in recent years that many people we thought were made turns out were not. If membership was that selective, then that indicates it was still significant and separate than any associate at the highest level who could not obtain membership due to their heritage.

In the Family Secret's case Marcello's lawyer argued he could not be a made member because his mother was Irish and the Calabrese I think it was, responded that Marcello must have lied to the boss or it must not be true. Or Calabrese's chastising of a Chicago associate for "having NY guys believing he's a made guy" in prison. I don't think this cautiousness surrounding the membership was a new protocol and likely has historical relevance.

Calabrese Jr. also said he was told by Calabrese Sr. that the outfit was originally designed not to hurt innocent people, but to protect "our people", which he said referred to Italians. That's pretty much what all sources say about the original purpose of the mafia. It's one of those mythical stories, but it shows a later Chicago member came to believe the same story repeated by countless sources around the US for decades.

When Frank Sr. was recorded discussing his making ceremony with his son, he said it was attended by a number of "capos" and said he was sponsored by his "capo". So along with the Los Angeles member informants referring to Chicago "caporegimes" and Fratianno's book calling them "capos", we have Chicago member Calabrese Sr. calling them "capos" himself decades later. His brother Nick also testified that Jimmy LaPietra was his "capo". Even if they adopted these terms later within Chicago (which I would need evidence for), the meaning was consistent both inside and outside of Chicago.

Mafia membership does seem to have been significant, as Frank Calabrese said he told his captain LaPietra that he didn't want to be inducted but LaPietra urged him to take it. It's unlikely that formal mafia membership became more significant over time, as the opposite trend is usually thought to be true (i.e. lowering of standards, members not having the same prestige/honor/opportunities, overall decline in mafia influence), so it's more likely that mafia membership in Chicago was still considered prestigious rather than suddenly becoming moreso, especially given their national ties were thin by the time of Calabrese's induction. It's not a stretch to say that in the early 1980s formal mafia membership was internally significant in Chicago.

B.'s argument comparing Alex to Watts in the case of their interactions with made members I find to be illuminating. Both these men (and fucking Rockman- sorry to keeping bringing him in this) I was beginning to say were instrumental in organized crime activities surrounding the organization but not the internal mafia society itself. And that's not really true now is it. Alex and Humphreys were able to issue/pass orders onto made soldiers in Chicago, Watts proposing DiLeonardo for membership in the Binos and Cleveland looking to Rockman after Scalish' death.

This was the FBI's perspective in 1963, which I find hard to argue with and shows they were aware of these kinds of parallels between different groups, though I would say Lansky and the Chicago names were more significant in their respective cities than the other names/cities listed:



Another name worth throwing in the ring might be Frank Erickson. He didn't have the influence of a Lansky or the Chicago figures, but he was a major NYC gambling boss and close personal friend of Frank Costello, among others. I don't know that he would have pulled a Joe Watts and passed a murder contract to a capodecina or told the mafia they need to induct someone, but he's in the discussion for sure.

You can find all kinds of perspectives among different types of sources, too. Here someone felt that Tommy Lucchese, who had become boss several years earlier, was below Lansky in the garment industry:



If that had been a member source, he probably would have had a different take and put Lucchese on top. But you know what, I don't necessarily think this source is wrong. On a functional level, I don't think Lucchese would necessarily challenge Lansky's authority in the garment industry, but I don't think Lansky would step on Lucchese's toes either. Lansky very well might have had more direct influence even though we know Lucchese was a major figure in the industry himself. It's open for interpretation.

When it comes to the organization itself, I always favor member sources. The Chicago member sources as well as the other US member sources close to Chicago have a fairly consistent perspective on the mafia organization, which makes sense because they were all mafia members. Non-member sources tended to view things slightly differently, more based on function. Like with the Lansky garment example, it doesn't mean they're wrong, but you have to consider where the source is coming from.

[Angelo Santino]

I'm getting the impression that making someone an official LCN member within Chicago was a very privileged and rare event. It doesn't seem like they "made everyone and anyone" and more information has come in recent years that many people we thought were made turns out were not. If membership was that selective, then that indicates it was still significant and separate than any associate at the highest level who could not obtain membership due to their heritage.

In the Family Secret's case Marcello's lawyer argued he could not be a made member because his mother was Irish and the Calabrese I think it was, responded that Marcello must have lied to the boss or it must not be true. Or Calabrese's chastising of a Chicago associate for "having NY guys believing he's a made guy" in prison. I don't think this cautiousness surrounding the membership was a new protocol and likely has historical relevance.

Calabrese Jr. also said he was told by Calabrese Sr. that the outfit was originally designed not to hurt innocent people, but to protect "our people", which he said referred to Italians. That's pretty much what all sources say about the original purpose of the mafia. It's one of those mythical stories, but it shows a later Chicago member came to believe the same story repeated by countless sources around the US for decades.

When Frank Sr. was recorded discussing his making ceremony with his son, he said it was attended by a number of "capos" and said he was sponsored by his "capo". So along with the Los Angeles member informants referring to Chicago "caporegimes" and Fratianno's book calling them "capos", we have Chicago member Calabrese Sr. calling them "capos" himself decades later. His brother Nick also testified that Jimmy LaPietra was his "capo". Even if they adopted these terms later within Chicago (which I would need evidence for), the meaning was consistent both inside and outside of Chicago.

Mafia membership does seem to have been significant, as Frank Calabrese said he told his captain LaPietra that he didn't want to be inducted but LaPietra urged him to take it. It's unlikely that formal mafia membership became more significant over time, as the opposite trend is usually thought to be true (i.e. lowering of standards, members not having the same prestige/honor/opportunities, overall decline in mafia influence), so it's more likely that mafia membership in Chicago was still considered prestigious rather than suddenly becoming moreso, especially given their national ties were thin by the time of Calabrese's induction. It's not a stretch to say that in the early 1980s formal mafia membership was internally significant in Chicago.

You should go over the recordings Calabrese Jr made with Sr and the things he stated. He said some interesting things about Di Fronzo, Lombardo, La Pietra, the different crews. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

We've come a lonnnng way with Chicago. THIS was where we were at in 2010, it may be wrong but I still enjoyed making it and none of the names are fabricated: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/1c/94 ... cff1d9.jpg

I did a more accurate one based entirely off what the CCC said without external opinions: https://mafiacharts.files.wordpress.com ... jpg?w=1024
(Anybody have a higher resolution of this? The hosting site I uploaded it on reduced the size, I'd have to find the original on my drives and Antiliar might have the one its on.

As I said earlier, alot more info has come out showing that many people, especially in Chicago whom we thought we made turns out were not. The Chicago LCN membership might not have been as large as people in the past have speculated. As we've seen with Cleveland and Pittsburgh who both maintained 60 men organizations were able to control 2-3 states. They utilized many unmade Italians and non-Italians in leadership or supervisory positions in local areas. Cleveland's nonmade Carabbia was Crew Boss and CL rep in Youngstown, Paul Hankesh was Pittsburgh's face in WV. Denver is another oddball family which at some point split into two factions, neither of which were very large but outside of a few formally initiated members these factions were multiethnic in Denver. Detroit also had non-Italian crew bosses, there was a guy in the 60's who while not made, was very much like an unmade captain heading his own crew of associates.

1980's Cleveland is an interesting example- https://mafiacharts.files.wordpress.com ... 736&zoom=2
Underneath what amounted to 10 active made members (and 12 inactive) was a criminal network spanning 200 people involved in everything from high level local politics and unions, to gambling down to drug and street crews. 10 members total. That speaks to the power of having membership and that single family cities did not need a high number to be effective.
-

In NY we've seen larger crews utilize lieutenants, we've seen cases where some are called acting capo while the official capo is still on the street and unimpeded. The Bonannos and Genoveses did this and I'm sure just about every captain has an informal aide. Messenger was a new rendition but who even knows how official that was. It might have been an informal position held by an established power in the network.

But beyond that, families match- boss, under, capo, soldier, under whatever term people apply to them locally they align with the national system. Each family can do whatever they want on the side- messengers, counselor emeritus, ceo, top boss, front boss, personal underboss etc. When LCN formalities were conducted, such as Appalachin or commission meetings, all that shit went by the wayside. We are speaking within the realm of the mafia/LCN stratosphere. Formalities. This aspect doesn't take take away, overlook or diminish the significance of an Alex, Rockman or Watts who, in the event there was a Mob Associate Strike and they all stopped earning and started picketing outside of the social clubs, the organizations would have been at a standstill. They are a vital and important part of the mafia biosphere as were the nonmade associates in Sicily. These guys don't exist in a bubble.

[Angelo Santino]

I also believe that the death of the most important mainlander Ricca also had something to do with accepting the CN traditions to an extent, since they still kept their old structure or type of hierarchy which gave the feds a lot of headache on who was who or on which level or rank

That's a good point. Accardo was the top boss and policy maker after Ricca died, and he and Aiuppa were both of Sicilian ancestry. It would have been their decision to "normalize" the standard LCN ceremony. Ricca may have experienced two ceremonies. He may have been a Camorrista when he was young, then was probably one of the ten men made into Al Capone's original crew after Masseria made Capone. It may have been Masseria who skipped some of the formal ceremony, which Capone and his successors followed.

Of Sicilian ancestry but American renditions who came up in the world of Chicago starting in Capone's orbit. Giancana himself was from Partanna and yet we see zero links to the Bonanno Family similarly to Salvatore Costa of Navy Street, he also didn't seem steeped in mafia tradition due to his Sicilianismo if he allegedly didn't want to have an underboss.. By the 1930's I don't think anyone was trying to mafa-ize or camorra-cize anything. The examples of people I'm not going into certainly didn't seem to have that agenda, their actions do not point to it. Even Pittsburgh which, along with Chicago, was the least Sicilian, they took off their shoes when entering the house. I'll leave it at that.

The opposing argument could be that these Chicago Italians were American and thus less influenced by the Sicilian tradition but even then, the hierarchy is not that intricate and leaves room for interpretation and for each member occupying to position to make it his own. Rappresentante or Boss, Underboss or #2, caporegime or crew boss. We've seen the structure in every city. Families were more connected, not less, between 1900 and 1960 so it makes little sense that Chicago would just decide to adopt a traditional method in the 1970's just like NY adopting a structure in 1931 doesn't make sense.

We don't know whether or not Masseria gave Capone the full ceremony or just said you're a member, given how both examples have occurred throughout history in different cases, Capone's bloody index finger is less relevant compared to his mafia-ization and the bestowing of legitimacy into a network that would have to recognize him from LA to NY. A low-class pimp associate challenging confratello Aiello in Chicago is a no-brainer as to where loyalties would lay. But Capone as BOB Masseria's capo aganst Aiello- staying the fuck outta that. People have made the argument that Capone didn't need membership to be successful because he already was. While he didn't need it to make money but he needed it to be recognized within the mafia/LCN/national syndicate, otherwise he would have been just a gang. Powerful yes, but not part of the national network. Had that happened that way they likely would have eventually been but that's neither here nor there, we have the evidence that mafia membership was a factor in everything Chicago related, past and present.

Let's assume that along the way someone said screw the ceremony, either Masseria onto Capone or Capone onto his ten men. Those who used the ceremony in Chicago in the 1970's had to have learned it from somewhere unless they called NY for advice. Cleveland allegedly didn't remember how to conduct the ceremony so Fratianno was consulted. But even then, ceremonies were likely used under Lonardo up to when Scalish stopped making people, they likely were a thing in Chicago prior to Lo Verde and we don't know what Al did. There was some rumor of members swearing on a Greek bible or something which I don't believe was ever confirmed.

I once seen Allan May make the argument that he never read Frank Costello having to undergo a ceremony and can't envision him in a dark room doing so. Tree falls in the woods type of thing, we weren't there to confirm what ceremonial or verbal practice Costello or Capone underwent but we do know their statuses as members were confirmed.

-

I think a High Level Researcher like B makes a good point, the ceremony has been used, altered or ignored in different groups including the most Sicilian of groups at various points in the past century. But one thing that hasn't changed is the significance of membership. All Chicago accounts point to it being a very rare and privileged distinction, as it was in Cleveland, Pittsburgh and everywhere else. And if it is rare, then the distinction of separating amico nos from associates despite an Alex or Humphries' vital importance in how the mafia ran affairs in the city is necessary.

[Villain]

Heres another good proof regarding the "significance" of the Italian membership in Chicago....



I also want to hear your opinion guys (except from one of you and he knows who he is) regarding this....



What does eligible mean? "the state of having the right to do or obtain something through satisfaction of the appropriate conditions." Hmmm...it seems there might be two types of membership...ones with the Italian blood and others who have done everything they were asked to do...and the final test for both groups was murder...

So this previous statement very much corresponds with the following one regarding the second group...



I "wonder" which two cities are the main sources regarding the above...