Understanding Chicago

[Snakes]

Good points and I agree also but i have one question...what is the difference between when the boss authorized some capo or high level made member to takeover some area and give orders to other made guys and associates, and authorizing a non-Italian to takeover some area and issue orders to made members and associates?

I'm not really sure there is a difference on the surface, other than one is a member and another is another isn't. But whatever the bosses want, that is what ultimately goes. If Ricca, Accardo, and Giancana say "Gus Alex runs the Loop; do what he says," you better do what he says.

[Villain]

Good points and I agree also but i have one question...what is the difference between when the boss authorized some capo or high level made member to takeover some area and give orders to other made guys and associates, and authorizing a non-Italian to takeover some area and issue orders to made members and associates?

I'm not really sure there is a difference on the surface, other than one is a member and another is another isn't. But whatever the bosses want, that is what ultimately goes. If Ricca, Accardo, and Giancana say "Gus Alex runs the Loop; do what he says," you better do what he says.

Thanks that was my point...i also remember some examples when a made guy such as Joe Amabile was backed by the boss, Battaglia, to takeover Prannos former crew, while on the other hand more than half of the organization was against it, and even though later tge situation came out that they were right, still they had to accept it since the order came down from the boss himself

[Angelo Santino]

It sounds like we all agree that there's an official mafia and then an informal shell surrounding each group. The Mafia is supposed to be a secret society, but in reality in each city it wasn't, they were instead local entities that people in the underworld as well as law enforcement knew existed. Without insider knowledge and a general lack of understanding on how LCN operated, it appeared each city had a cluster of Italians with non-Italians surrounding them in what they deemed "The National Crime Syndicate." A term I don't believe was ever formally used.

When it comes to the Mafia and its formalities as a society, non-Itals can be dismissed. However this is organized crime and that inner circle likely amounts to 30-40% of what transpires daily, the rest is organized crime and while there's a pecking order, it is much more horizontal than the Mafia charts suggest. High level Mafia powers, in contrast to what many consider to be the ideal conduct of only surrounding himself with his under and consig and delegating through them, have always had non-Itals around them. If there's someone around who's delivering significant money to your kitty why would you put a buffer in there? Money, rackets etc are not directly Mafia affairs but organizational affairs.

yes. A few were very high ranking and were closer to Trafficante than some made guys.

Jimmy Velasco was THE political fixer in the 1940s for the Mafia and was the conduit between the underworld and upperworld. He, unfortunately, fell out with the mob and was killed on 12/12/48.

Joe "Baby JOe Diez was a major political fixer in the 70s and 80s. After Trafficante died, he became part of an elder "advisory council" to the Tampa family.

Johnny "Scarface" Rivera was another significant Spanish associate. though more of a lower level.


Trafficante had a crew of Cuban bolita men and drug traffickers in Miami following Castro's takeover. They were seperate than the CUbans and Spanish in Tampa.

That's interesting. It's all interesting.

While admitably, I fall on the side of B in terms if differentiating made members from associates, I (and B. for that matter at the end of the day) see the importance of these associates. Without them, Chicago, Cleveland, Tampa wouldn't have been as influential as they were.

So we had a Cuban, Joe Diez on the advisory counsel post-Trafficante? Can you expand on that? As B. can go into with more specifics than myself, other families across the midwest had some type of council or panel that included the admin, captains and elder members. Non-made members on a similar Tampanian model would be quite auspicious.

I truly think, at the heart of it all, each family was very similar with their outsider associatons. However with Valachi and the McClellan Comittee and the charts displaying nothing but Ital names, NY got "Italianized" by outsiders, with names such as Lansky or even a recent Watts quickly dismissed as "just an associate." But without a Valachi and those confines he lead to, people may have made different conclusions about NY.

After Trafficante passed in 87 there was an ad-hoc group of old timers who became sort of an advisory council to the mob: Jimmy Longo, Tom Diecidue, Sam Trafficante, Al Scaglione, Baby Joe Diez, and Arthur Perla. They met in restaurants, sometimes at Diecidue's house and became sort of consilgieres. They all pretty much died by the mid 1990s.

I heard somewhere, not sure if it's true, that Tampa either had a lack of captains or one captain or something to that effect. Can you explain that to me given that their interests expanded outside of the Tampa/Ybor area.

[B.]

They called it Sagia? Could it had been a phonetic spelling for Seggia (dialect for chair). Detroit had what was called the chair.

When did Pittsburgh have a council? They were arguably the least Sicilian next to Chicago and New England.

It was definitely phonetic for seggia, then. Maniaci said "sagia" but claimed it meant "chair", so you nailed it. I imagine it was used in the same sense as "chairing a meeting."

Gentile talks about a consiglio in Pittsburgh under Conti early on and seems to use it in the same sense he discusses the San Francisco consiglio, which is specific to that family. It was during the alleged conflict with the non-Sicilians, so it may have been specific to that era when the Sicilians were in charge.

The latter is also true. One thing we've never seen is a newly promoted LCN boss issuing a new decree prohibiting members from dealing with non-Italians in a total change of course from his predecessor.

We actually see the opposite pattern, too. The myth is always that Luciano revolutionized the organization by promoting non-Sicilians and working with non-Italians, then evidence points to Masseria bringing in a ton of non-Sicilians and working with non-Italians, but it's looking now like the post-Morello group of the mid-1910s inducted non-Sicilians and while I don't have evidence on hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they were working with non-Italians, too.

We can see this with Aiello working closely with the Bugs Moran gang and his predecessors inducting a Neapolitan like Esposito ten years before Capone became boss. These processes are gradual and along the lines of what you said, we don't see a new boss make a decree like "We're workin' with the non-Italians now, boys! You Mustachio Petes can deal with it or die!" just like we don't see traditionalists making the decree, "We no work with non-Italiano."

The mafia is more a history of collaboration and cooperation than it is "might is right" style violence. Ruthless despots usually end up dead in the mafia even if they achieve temporary power. I believe Al Capone for example was certainly capable of murder (and proved that), but his greater legacy is that of a mafia politician who could bridge gaps and ultimately receive acceptance at the highest level of both mafia and non-mafia circles. I don't think Capone and Luciano would have received the acceptance they did if they tried to forcefully change the entire mafia -- I think they recognized the trends that were developing and capitalized on them. That itself is impressive.

Good points and I agree also but i have one question...what is the difference between when the boss authorized some capo or high level made member to takeover some area and give orders to other made guys and associates, and authorizing a non-Italian to takeover some area and issue orders to made members and associates?

The big difference to me is that this non-Italian would have to be a truly impressive figure who would be respected by most of the individuals he interacted with (and this would be the reason the boss authorized him in the first place, so it's sort of a "chicken or the egg" discussion). It appears all of the important non-Italians in Chicago were highly respected, and the Chicago bosses didn't try to insert some random non-Italian peon into an important position.

On the other hand, there are many Italians inducted into Cosa Nostra who are not not widely respected, but earned their membership and high rank through nepotism or close friendship with the leadership. In the latter example, people will go through the motions of respecting this member's rank because he represents Cosa Nostra and the boss's authority. Joe Magliocco might be an example of this -- he was the underboss for 30 years and had respect through his brother-in-law Profaci, but when Profaci died, Magliocco was not respected by the membership, there were murder plots against him, and the Commission publicly humiliated him when he tried to become the new official boss.

So there really isn't a functional difference when it comes to the boss's authorization of someone, only formalities, which describes a lot of mafia politics.

[Angelo Santino]

They called it Sagia? Could it had been a phonetic spelling for Seggia (dialect for chair). Detroit had what was called the chair.

When did Pittsburgh have a council? They were arguably the least Sicilian next to Chicago and New England.

It was definitely phonetic for seggia, then. Maniaci said "sagia" but claimed it meant "chair", so you nailed it. I imagine it was used in the same sense as "chairing a meeting."

Gentile talks about a consiglio in Pittsburgh under Conti early on and seems to use it in the same sense he discusses the San Francisco consiglio, which is specific to that family. It was during the alleged conflict with the non-Sicilians, so it may have been specific to that era when the Sicilians were in charge.

The Pittsburgh info is confusing and discombobulated. He refers to Conte as the boss and then claims Salvatore Calderone hosted the meeting. I could never quite understand what the Grand Council was, and we still don't know if there was a General Assembly and then a national Grand Council of senior/NY bosses which Morello and Clemente implied. However the Pittsburgh affair seemed like a local affair. I'm not saying you're wrong about an early Seggia or that I disagree, but I am hesitant in concluding that this was definitely an earlier form what you've discovered in the 70's. Very interesting idea though. Thank you.

The latter is also true. One thing we've never seen is a newly promoted LCN boss issuing a new decree prohibiting members from dealing with non-Italians in a total change of course from his predecessor.

We actually see the opposite pattern, too. The myth is always that Luciano revolutionized the organization by promoting non-Sicilians and working with non-Italians, then evidence points to Masseria bringing in a ton of non-Sicilians and working with non-Italians, but it's looking now like the post-Morello group of the mid-1910s inducted non-Sicilians and while I don't have evidence on hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they were working with non-Italians, too.

We can see this with Aiello working closely with the Bugs Moran gang and his predecessors inducting a Neapolitan like Esposito ten years before Capone became boss. These processes are gradual and along the lines of what you said, we don't see a new boss make a decree like "We're workin' with the non-Italians now, boys! You Mustachio Petes can deal with it or die!" just like we don't see traditionalists making the decree, "We no work with non-Italiano."

Many forget that Giuseppe Morello was arrested in the 1890's with 3 Irishmen. His brothers the Terranovas, who were younger, came of age in NY and presumably were made quite young, they had non-Ital connections. In 1910's, two of the "Morellos" that surfaced in the Navy Street thing (greatly misunderstand) were non-Sicilian. Clemente confirmed one as a member and the other is a likely suspect. You know who else had non-Sicilian connections? Pietro Inzerillo, he was close to a French-Northern Italianman who wasn't a member.

The mafia is more a history of collaboration and cooperation than it is "might is right" style violence. Ruthless despots usually end up dead in the mafia even if they achieve temporary power. I believe Al Capone for example was certainly capable of murder (and proved that), but his greater legacy is that of a mafia politician who could bridge gaps and ultimately receive acceptance at the highest level of both mafia and non-mafia circles. I don't think Capone and Luciano would have received the acceptance they did if they tried to forcefully change the entire mafia -- I think they recognized the trends that were developing and capitalized on them. That itself is impressive.

Agreed. I'd argue though that Capone and Merlino both influenced the group for 20+ years following their departure with the guys they brought in and who took over in leading positions.

[B.]

The Pittsburgh info is confusing and discombobulated. He refers to Conte as the boss and then claims Salvatore Calderone hosted the meeting. I could never quite understand what the Grand Council was, and we still don't know if there was a General Assembly and then a national Grand Council of senior/NY bosses which Morello and Clemente implied. However the Pittsburgh affair seemed like a local affair. I'm not saying you're wrong about an early Seggia or that I disagree, but I am hesitant in concluding that this was definitely an earlier form what you've discovered in the 70's. Very interesting idea though. Thank you.

Oh, I don't know anything about this existing in the 1970s. The examples I listed were all earlier.

The St. Louis council would meet in the funeral home owned by boss Pasquale Miceli pre-1953 and in Kansas City it sounds like they used the bakery owned by a leading member. Milwaukee held this meeting in the 1950s (and likely earlier) and early 1960s, but it was discontinued by Balistrieri at some point. Not sure if Detroit kept it up later on, but it might play into some of the "extra" positions mentioned by Scott Burnstein over the years.

Another family I forgot to mention that had one was Pittston. Stefano LaTorre's son said that his father was called before this type of council around 1945, and it included Joe Barbara, Russell Bufalino (not yet boss), and the Parrino brothers. They were responsible for deciding LaTorre's fate.

All of the sources describe this as a council of senior members who helped the boss administer policy, make decisions, and in some cases took part in family "trials."

Gentile uses the term consiglio to describe a council within the San Francisco family that decided whether he should transfer into their family, then says he contacted a consiglio when he arrived in Pittsburgh so it sounded similar. He also says Conti had "his" consiglio so it sounds local to that family. Most of the time he clarifies "Grand Consiglio" when he's talking about the assembly-sponsored council (which apparently helped the capo dei capi manage national affairs) but hard to say for sure w/ Pittsburgh as he doesn't stop and explain exactly what he means every time he uses it. His San Fran example seems more clear, though.

I'm of the opinion that a consiglio/council or "seggia" was common and basically the same thing in these different groups pre-1960s, as the examples refer to it existing in the 1940s-1960s and it serves a similar purpose.

Many forget that Giuseppe Morello was arrested in the 1890's with 3 Irishmen. His brothers the Terranovas, who were younger, came of age in NY and presumably were made quite young, they had non-Ital connections. In 1910's, two of the "Morellos" that surfaced in the Navy Street thing (greatly misunderstand) were non-Sicilian. Clemente confirmed one as a member and the other is a likely suspect. You know who else had non-Sicilian connections? Pietro Inzerillo, he was close to a French-Northern Italianman who wasn't a member.

There we go! I knew there was something there, but couldn't remember what it was. So not even Masseria can be credited as some kind of mafia revolutionary by working with the people he worked with.

[B.]

- Gambino capodecina Michael Dileonardo testified that in 1989, Joe Watts approached DiLeonardo (who was then a soldier), capodecina Jack D'Amico, and proposed member Dominick Borghese and gave them orders from boss John Gotti to kill associate Fred Weiss. Weiss was to be killed because it was feared he would cooperate against an associate of capodecina Jimmy Failla in the garbage industry.

- In context with the above orders, DiLeonardo described Joe Watts as "part of the inner circle", meaning the Gotti leadership, but refers to him as a "close associate". This is a clear example, documented under oath in court, of associate Joe Watts giving orders to a Gambino capodecina and soldier to kill a family associate involved with another Gambino capodecina.

- DiLeonardo also testified that the Westies were "direct" with John Gotti and Joe Watts, showing that Watts had authority over another significant organized crime group that were technically associates of the Gambino family.

- In another incident after John Gotti was in prison, DiLeonardo testified that Watts had "carte blanche" in the construction industry and Junior Gotti, Jack D'Amico, and DiLeonardo took Watts at his "word" in a construction-related beef for this reason, allowing Watts to win the sitdown. Recall that multiple made members of the Gambino family were murdered in construction beefs during the Gotti regime, so this illustrates Watts' power in a highly competitive mafia-controlled industry.

- In his interview with Scarpo, DiLeonardo said that Joe Watts pushed for DiLeonardo to become inducted as a made member. This shows that as a non-Italian associate, Watts had enough influence to help an Italian associate become a made member of the Gambino family.

- Watts' close relationship to Gotti was not a one-off, either, as it has been reported that Watts had a similarly close relationship to boss Paul Castellano and capodecina/underboss Tommy Bilotti. There is a well-known photograph of Watts, capodecina Frank DeCicco, and boss Paul Castellano eating dinner in Castellano's home.

- It's been reported that following the murder of underboss Tommy Bilotti, Joe Watts inherited Bilotti's lucrative loanshark operation on Staten Island.

- A recorded discussion between Gambino soldier Nick Stefanelli and Philadephia capodecina Joe Licata mentions Joe Watts in context with the Gambino leadership.

Just to follow up...

On the last point, here is the transcript where Watts is brought up. Hard to know exactly what was being said as they were talking over each other, but the discussion was about Gambino family leaders and who will potentially run the family. I don't know what else Stefanelli (Gambino soldier) could have meant when he brought up Watts.

Licata: Who's the boss? Nobody's the boss.
Stefanelli: "Acting. Pete, Pete Gotti's really the boss.
Licata: Yeah, yeah. I know. The brother put him there. But he's... (UI) yeah, keep him... (UI)
Stefanelli: (UI) in the can (UI)
Fazzini: How much time does he got left?
Licata (UI) a Greenhorn from Elizabeth up, out of New York.
Fazzini: How much time does he got left?
Licata: No, he's got a big beef with the triumvirate.
Stefanelli: They don't beat the case, then it's Joe Watts who's got it.
Licata: Joe Watts is in the can, too. Right?

I don't think he meant Watts would be recognized by the membership as the "acting boss" or part of the official administration, but he included Watts in the conversation which is interesting in light of DiLeonardo's testimony. Also interesting that Licata (a capodecina from another family) doesn't stop and say, "What do you mean Joe Watts? He ain't Italian." He just clarifies that Watts is in prison.

[Angelo Santino]

The Pittsburgh info is confusing and discombobulated. He refers to Conte as the boss and then claims Salvatore Calderone hosted the meeting. I could never quite understand what the Grand Council was, and we still don't know if there was a General Assembly and then a national Grand Council of senior/NY bosses which Morello and Clemente implied. However the Pittsburgh affair seemed like a local affair. I'm not saying you're wrong about an early Seggia or that I disagree, but I am hesitant in concluding that this was definitely an earlier form what you've discovered in the 70's. Very interesting idea though. Thank you.

Oh, I don't know anything about this existing in the 1970s. The examples I listed were all earlier.

The St. Louis council would meet in the funeral home owned by boss Pasquale Miceli pre-1953 and in Kansas City it sounds like they used the bakery owned by a leading member. Milwaukee held this meeting in the 1950s (and likely earlier) and early 1960s, but it was discontinued by Balistrieri at some point. Not sure if Detroit kept it up later on, but it might play into some of the "extra" positions mentioned by Scott Burnstein over the years.

Another family I forgot to mention that had one was Pittston. Stefano LaTorre's son said that his father was called before this type of council around 1945, and it included Joe Barbara, Russell Bufalino (not yet boss), and the Parrino brothers. They were responsible for deciding LaTorre's fate.

All of the sources describe this as a council of senior members who helped the boss administer policy, make decisions, and in some cases took part in family "trials."

Gentile uses the term consiglio to describe a council within the San Francisco family that decided whether he should transfer into their family, then says he contacted a consiglio when he arrived in Pittsburgh so it sounded similar. He also says Conti had "his" consiglio so it sounds local to that family. Most of the time he clarifies "Grand Consiglio" when he's talking about the assembly-sponsored council (which apparently helped the capo dei capi manage national affairs) but hard to say for sure w/ Pittsburgh as he doesn't stop and explain exactly what he means every time he uses it. His San Fran example seems more clear, though.

I'm of the opinion that a consiglio/council or "seggia" was common and basically the same thing in these different groups pre-1960s, as the examples refer to it existing in the 1940s-1960s and it serves a similar purpose.

Many forget that Giuseppe Morello was arrested in the 1890's with 3 Irishmen. His brothers the Terranovas, who were younger, came of age in NY and presumably were made quite young, they had non-Ital connections. In 1910's, two of the "Morellos" that surfaced in the Navy Street thing (greatly misunderstand) were non-Sicilian. Clemente confirmed one as a member and the other is a likely suspect. You know who else had non-Sicilian connections? Pietro Inzerillo, he was close to a French-Northern Italianman who wasn't a member.

There we go! I knew there was something there, but couldn't remember what it was. So not even Masseria can be credited as some kind of mafia revolutionary by working with the people he worked with.

1) I stand corrected on the 1970's, I was referring to the previous examples and was off by 3 decades. Scott's Tampa example I think was late 80's/early 90's.

2) I don't recall Gentile mentioning a council in SF or Conte's consiglio, although the latter does ring a distant bell. I know you are not lying. If you have the examples on hand could you send to me, I'd like to see them.

3) No, Masseria wasn't the first, he was following a criminal trend of Italians and non-Italians involved in rackets together, it wasn't the rare occurrence that Christian Slater and Patrick Dempsey made it out to be in Mobsters. I still love that film though.

4) As to who started the trend. I had a recent thought provoking conversation with Villain in PM and the issue of horizontal hierarchies was brought up and he made some excellent points. Now what I'm going to say next isn't applied to anyone here but just a general observation and its that people make things difficult on themselves by trying to find the "final power" or the man behind the curtain. Nobody in the history of the Mafia is responsible for any one thing, it's the result of many members contributions over a period of time. Some members and bosses are truly notable with lasting effects on the groups they were involved in, but no one seems to have ever changed anything at the macro level.

Two examples thrown around: Luciano and Gotti.
Luciano's place is significant but he did not "found" any goddamn American LCN. He didn't introduce any "new way." Whether he was instrumental in implementing the commission remains to be seen but discussions on such a concept began a year prior. As far as anything else, the structure, consigliere, associates whatever, I'm at a loss for what the hell he was supposed to have changed at the national level. Perhaps his being boss signaled a trend like Gotti would years later, but the trend was shortlived. Luciano's flashy lifestyle was never a Genovese emblem, quite the opposite.

So while Luciano gets credit for shit he had nothing to do with, Gotti on the other hand gets blamed for everything. He brought attention onto Cosa Nostra is the main argument. At the local level, yes, his having the captains come to Mulberry St every Thursday probably wasn't the best decision. But fuck, some books make it out to be like things were the 1950's before he became boss and that the commission case, RICO statutes, Federal funding increases for investigations, all the previous convictions in the past 10 years never happened. Gotti didn't help matters but he certainly didn't get the ball rolling, the FBI would not not have gone after the mob if Gotti wasn't boss. And all the others who became boss at the same time as him were off the streets or in Chin's case, facing indictment by the early 90's. Some can go argue Gravano's defection is a result of Gotti but again it's not like the government didn't have cases built on Amuso, Gigante etc before Gravano flipped and they would have found another method.

[B.]

1) I stand corrected on the 1970's, I was referring to the previous examples and was off by 3 decades. Scott's Tampa example I think was late 80's/early 90's.

2) I don't recall Gentile mentioning a council in SF or Conte's consiglio, although the latter does ring a distant bell. I know you are not lying. If you have the examples on hand could you send to me, I'd like to see them.

The later Tampa council sounds like an informal continuation of the same council/consiglio/seggia model used by many of these families. There is info suggesting Tampa had that in place in the 1950s/60s, and it appears the FBI made reference to it on their 1960s chart that includes a couple of senior members as "Elders" next to Trafficante: https://mafia.wikia.org/wiki/Trafficant ... _chart.jpg

I will PM you the Gentile excerpts I'm referring to.

4) As to who started the trend. I had a recent thought provoking conversation with Villain in PM and the issue of horizontal hierarchies was brought up and he made some excellent points. Now what I'm going to say next isn't applied to anyone here but just a general observation and its that people make things difficult on themselves by trying to find the "final power" or the man behind the curtain. Nobody in the history of the Mafia is responsible for any one thing, it's the result of many members contributions over a period of time. Some members and bosses are truly notable with lasting effects on the groups they were involved in, but no one seems to have ever changed anything at the macro level.

Two examples thrown around: Luciano and Gotti.
Luciano's place on the commission is significant but he did not come up with the idea. Whether he was instrumental in implementing it remains to be seen but discussions on such a concept began a year prior. As far as anything else, the structure, consigliere, associates whatever, I'm at a loss for what the hell he was supposed to have changed at the national level. Perhaps his being boss signaled a trend like Gotti would years later, but the trend was shortlived. Luciano's flashy lifestyle was never a Genovese emblem, quite the opposite.

So while Luciano gets credit for shit he had nothing to do with, Gotti on the other hand gets blamed for everything. He brought attention onto Cosa Nostra is the main argument. At the local level, yes, his having the captains come to Mulberry St every Thursday probably wasn't the best decision. But fuck, some books make it out to be like things were the 1950's before he became boss and that the commission case, RICO statutes, Federal funding increases for investigations, all the previous convictions in the past 10 years never happened. Gotti didn't help matters but he certainly didn't get the ball rolling, the FBI would not not have gone after the mob if Gotti wasn't boss.

Horizontal hierarchies were common in the mafia / Cosa Nostra, especially the larger families. That's why I brought up Philadelphia in the first post. Angelo Bruno was the boss, but he described "his" consigliere (a position elected by the membership, not appointed by the boss, so the consigliere traditionally "belongs" to the membership not the boss) as the "rappresentante" of his own faction. Rugnetta had the power to veto a making ceremony approved by both Bruno and NYC and did exactly that. I'd call that horizontal power if anything is.

Contrast this with the Profaci family, where Profaci and his brother-in-law ran a vertical structure and were accused by the membership of demanding too much tribute. We saw something similar under Joe Bonanno, who eliminated two former consiglieri from non-Castellammarese backgrounds and promoted his paesani to the administration.

But then you have the Genovese family. Under Frank Costello, his underboss Genovese was his near-equal if not equal and had his own faction even when he was out of the country. After Genovese went away, the Catena and Eboli leadership was a powersharing situation as well. Reliable info suggests one handled NYC while the other handled NJ, but they were near-equal regardless of who was acting boss vs. underboss. Most captains in that family were fairly autonomous.

Same situation with the Gambino family, where Gambino/Castellano were the bosses, but Dellacroce had full reign over his own faction and Joe N. Gallo was a power to be reckoned with as well. You can trace that back to the Mangano, Anastasia, and Biondo admin who also had the Sciacchitani captains under them with their own defacto leader/consigliere.

Definitely more examples of horizontal hierarchies in those two families than not. I haven't seen anything to suggest Chicago's top leaders were fundamentally different in this way -- there was a distribution of power based on the status of the individual and what they represented (be it a faction or individual power).

What you said about this need to identify the "top boss" or the "real power" is true and I think sometimes it over-complicates discussions. The Genovese are again a great example. It's interesting to know whether Salerno was formally the official boss, front boss, or "just" the underboss (which is traditionally the "street boss"), but if you read the Palma Boys tapes, there's no question he was one of the two most powerful leaders of that family and there was only a hair difference. Whether he was equal or "only" near-equal to Gigante makes little difference, as Salerno exercised authority at the highest levels of the Genovese family, sat on the Commission, and made decisions on behalf of the Buffalo and Cleveland families. So it's really just about the formal designation. No doubt the same conversation applies to the Tieri/Lombardo discussion and other attempts to figure out the "real power".

[Angelo Santino]

Greene: "I know why you guys call each other Ronnie the Crab, Peanuts and Frankie B: it's cause y'er too stupid to remember each other's names.... see ya around, Lippps. "

Salerno: "Your Family has become a major fucking embarrassment. What the hell's going on over there!? Whaddya doin? Where's your men!? Where's Brancato?"
Licavoli: "He's watchin' the city."
Salerno: "'Watchin' the city'? You might as well GIVE the city to this Mick prick!"
-Kill The Irishmen.

[B.]

Here's a question:

When was the last documented Commission meeting/situation that Chicago was involved in? I made this thread some time ago regarding the 1977 Colombo conflict that resulted in the demotion of underboss Abbatemarco and other leaders, plus a murder:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4862&p=114420

The source (who was definitely well-informed of the situation) said that the "boss of Chicago" sat in on this dispute as part of the Commission.

[Pogo The Clown]

They attended one a little later, 1978 or 79, in regards to the AC casinos. It was decided that AC belonged to NY and LV belonged to Chicago with NY keeping whatever they still currently had there.


Pogo

[Snakes]

Here's a question:

When was the last documented Commission meeting/situation that Chicago was involved in? I made this thread some time ago regarding the 1977 Colombo conflict that resulted in the demotion of underboss Abbatemarco and other leaders, plus a murder:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4862&p=114420

The source (who was definitely well-informed of the situation) said that the "boss of Chicago" sat in on this dispute as part of the Commission.

Carlisi may have met as late as 1989 with John Gotti in Florida. The details of the meeting are sketchy. The DeCavalcantes may have also been involved although I'd have to double check.

[Angelo Santino]

Here's a question:

When was the last documented Commission meeting/situation that Chicago was involved in? I made this thread some time ago regarding the 1977 Colombo conflict that resulted in the demotion of underboss Abbatemarco and other leaders, plus a murder:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4862&p=114420

The source (who was definitely well-informed of the situation) said that the "boss of Chicago" sat in on this dispute as part of the Commission.

Carlisi may have met as late as 1989 with John Gotti in Florida. The details of the meeting are sketchy. The DeCavalcantes may have also been involved although I'd have to double check.

Gravano claimed that the underboss of Chicago reached out to borrow Cutler I believe. Not sure if that constitutes a commission meeting but I figured I'd throw that out there.

[Snakes]

Here's a question:

When was the last documented Commission meeting/situation that Chicago was involved in? I made this thread some time ago regarding the 1977 Colombo conflict that resulted in the demotion of underboss Abbatemarco and other leaders, plus a murder:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4862&p=114420

The source (who was definitely well-informed of the situation) said that the "boss of Chicago" sat in on this dispute as part of the Commission.

Carlisi may have met as late as 1989 with John Gotti in Florida. The details of the meeting are sketchy. The DeCavalcantes may have also been involved although I'd have to double check.

Gravano claimed that the underboss of Chicago reached out to borrow Cutler I believe. Not sure if that constitutes a commission meeting but I figured I'd throw that out there.

Cutler defended DeLaurentis in the early 90s