Massino’s Rebuild/Era

[Clackclack]

Mafia politics aren't based on membership size. It's relevant to the discussion for sure, but member sources themselves have said as much. A large family can just as easily end up with a fractured power base due to factionalism and be more susceptible to in-fighting (not necessarily violence but def divided interests).

The Bonannos never surpassed the Gambino family in terms of size or operations, but it could be argued that they had more political influence within the NYC mafia than most of the groups during this period.

- Bonanno family had their full administration on the streets and Massino had steadily built the family back up through tight-knit relationships.
- Brooklyn-based Gambino family underboss had flipped, administration was incarcerated, and Junior Gotti was at the top of the family.
- Lucchese family was decimated by warfare/prison, Brooklyn acting boss + underboss both flipped, administration incarcerated.
- Brooklyn Colombo family was decimated by warfare, prison, and cooperation. Not much elaboration needed.

While the Bonanno family didn't have as much of a presence in the same Brooklyn neighborhoods where the Gambino, Lucchese, and Colombo family received the most damage, this still had an impact on the Bonanno family's influence in Brooklyn and Queens.

I try not to measure the families based on immeasurables/intangibles like "power", but it was not only Massino's leadership but also extremely damaging events in the Gambino, Lucchese, and Colombo families that would have benefited the Bonanno family through most of the 1990s.

B., your summations of facts is as intriguing as any OC author/expert out there. Kudos buddy. I love reading your breakdowns.

[Wiseguy]

Mafia politics aren't based on membership size. It's relevant to the discussion for sure, but member sources themselves have said as much. A large family can just as easily end up with a fractured power base due to factionalism and be more susceptible to in-fighting (not necessarily violence but def divided interests).

The Bonannos never surpassed the Gambino family in terms of size or operations, but it could be argued that they had more political influence within the NYC mafia than most of the groups during this period.

- Bonanno family had their full administration on the streets and Massino had steadily built the family back up through tight-knit relationships.
- Brooklyn-based Gambino family underboss had flipped, administration was incarcerated, and Junior Gotti was at the top of the family.
- Lucchese family was decimated by warfare/prison, Brooklyn acting boss + underboss both flipped, administration incarcerated.
- Brooklyn Colombo family was decimated by warfare, prison, and cooperation. Not much elaboration needed.

While the Bonanno family didn't have as much of a presence in the same Brooklyn neighborhoods where the Gambino, Lucchese, and Colombo family received the most damage, this still had an impact on the Bonanno family's influence in Brooklyn and Queens.

I try not to measure the families based on immeasurables/intangibles like "power", but it was not only Massino's leadership but also extremely damaging events in the Gambino, Lucchese, and Colombo families that would have benefited the Bonanno family through most of the 1990s.

That's just it. Even more than whatever leadership skills he brought, the main reason for Massino's influence in the greater NY mob was the attrition of the other families (except the Genovese). The only reason he more or less chaired the 2000 meeting was because all the other bosses were in prison by that point. Not because the Bonannos had become such a powerhouse. And even that shouldn't be taken too far. I never agreed with what Vitale said about a family being "only as strong as its boss." That's overly simplistic and there are several factors that contribute to the strength of a family.

[SonnyBlackstein]

I never agreed with what Vitale said about a family being "only as strong as its boss." That's overly simplistic and there are several factors that contribute to the strength of a family.

Obviously

But the statement has merit in that having a functioning representative on the street carries WEIGHT. How many examples have we seen where the strength of the family is presented via its boss? Just FIVE minutes ago we had Gene Borello laugh at the Bo’s literally because they didn’t have a boss.

So sure, it wasn’t a whole sale clinical breakdown by Vitale in the literal, but what he said had weight.

[Wiseguy]

I never agreed with what Vitale said about a family being "only as strong as its boss." That's overly simplistic and there are several factors that contribute to the strength of a family.

Obviously

But the statement has merit in that having a functioning representative on the street carries WEIGHT. How many examples have we seen where the strength of the family is presented via its boss? Just FIVE minutes ago we had Gene Borello laugh at the Bo’s literally because they didn’t have a boss.

So sure, it wasn’t a whole sale clinical breakdown by Vitale in the literal, but what he said had weight.

But you guys are putting too much emphasis on that. When B said, "The Bonannos never surpassed the Gambino family in terms of size or operations," that pretty much sums it up. The individual influence of one guy, even the boss, isn't as significant as the overall footprint and day-to-day operations of the organization; which is what organized crime is all about. Even if Santos Trafficante or Carlos Marcello had more name cachet than Rusty Rastelli or Joe Colombo, the organizations the latter two ran were obviously more powerful.

[500YearReign]

I think there is quite a bit of information about the Bonannos and other families that is not publicly available and highly classified.

If the information was ever presented to the public in toto, totally unredacted, I believe we would all be astounded.

[SonnyBlackstein]

I never agreed with what Vitale said about a family being "only as strong as its boss." That's overly simplistic and there are several factors that contribute to the strength of a family.

Obviously

But the statement has merit in that having a functioning representative on the street carries WEIGHT. How many examples have we seen where the strength of the family is presented via its boss? Just FIVE minutes ago we had Gene Borello laugh at the Bo’s literally because they didn’t have a boss.

So sure, it wasn’t a whole sale clinical breakdown by Vitale in the literal, but what he said had weight.

But you guys are putting too much emphasis on that. When B said, "The Bonannos never surpassed the Gambino family in terms of size or operations," that pretty much sums it up. The individual influence of one guy, even the boss, isn't as significant as the overall footprint and day-to-day operations of the organization; which is what organized crime is all about. Even if Santos Trafficante or Carlos Marcello had more name cachet than Rusty Rastelli or Joe Colombo, the organizations the latter two ran were obviously more powerful.

Thank you professor.
I completely agree that size, amount of operations etc etc is the most comprehensive and accurate way to surmise a families ‘power’. All I’m saying is that we’ve had numerous examples from what guys in the street think and ‘assign’ power (respect?) too. And a working administration, on the street with a powerful boss carries weight.

And it’s THEIR game. Not ours. We observe them. We don’t tell them what their criteria should be. And to them, and hence to us, a powerful boss carries weight in a families standing.

[bert]

I think there is quite a bit of information about the Bonannos and other families that is not publicly available and highly classified.

If the information was ever presented to the public in toto, totally unredacted, I believe we would all be astounded.

We can only wish to see that. Maybe in 100 years.

[Angelo Santino]

I never agreed with what Vitale said about a family being "only as strong as its boss." That's overly simplistic and there are several factors that contribute to the strength of a family.

Obviously

But the statement has merit in that having a functioning representative on the street carries WEIGHT. How many examples have we seen where the strength of the family is presented via its boss? Just FIVE minutes ago we had Gene Borello laugh at the Bo’s literally because they didn’t have a boss.

So sure, it wasn’t a whole sale clinical breakdown by Vitale in the literal, but what he said had weight.

But you guys are putting too much emphasis on that. When B said, "The Bonannos never surpassed the Gambino family in terms of size or operations," that pretty much sums it up. The individual influence of one guy, even the boss, isn't as significant as the overall footprint and day-to-day operations of the organization; which is what organized crime is all about. Even if Santos Trafficante or Carlos Marcello had more name cachet than Rusty Rastelli or Joe Colombo, the organizations the latter two ran were obviously more powerful.

Thank you professor.
I completely agree that size, amount of operations etc etc is the most comprehensive and accurate way to surmise a families ‘power’. All I’m saying is that we’ve had numerous examples from what guys in the street think and ‘assign’ power (respect?) too. And a working administration, on the street with a powerful boss carries weight.

And it’s THEIR game. Not ours. We observe them. We don’t tell them what their criteria should be. And to them, and hence to us, a powerful boss carries weight in a families standing.

From 2001 until 2004 Massino was getting heaps of praise in the news for being the only boss on the street, "reestablishing" the Bonannos (like he showed all 110 members how to make money again) and got the Bonnanos seat back onto a political body that was either defunct or no longer existed. Also before Vitale flipped, Massino was praised by mobwatchers for installing his brother in law, ensuring no chance of another Gravano situation (that was an actual argument). I think the Bonanno's omission or non-entry into other white collar rackets that the other family's were engaged in helped the situation, the FBI was heavily focused on this and the Bonannos were not lighting up on the radar during that period. They escaped scrutiny until the FBI made them a priority in 2001 (when the argument was that with 911 the Mafia would have some breathing room).

"He's the last of the old timers, he'll never flip." - Joe Pistone, weeks before Massino flipped.

Power means different things to different people (inside and outside, close and far away). The Genovese's 300+ membership (whatever the number) would win in the Most Membership if that's what we're going by. The Bonanno's international reach into Canada might mean that to others if we're considering territory and so forth. We'd need to establish categories for everything ranging from Membership down to individual rackets (drugs, loansharking, gambling etc) and lay out who has more influence in each set category. Given the fluidity of the Mafia as well as the fact that we don't have complete information, we'd have to go by published/official sources and develop a methodology for measuring.. I'd take my hat off for every attempted such an endeavor.

[Lupara]

Power means different things to different people (inside and outside, close and far away). The Genovese's 300+ membership (whatever the number) would win in the Most Membership if that's what we're going by. The Bonanno's international reach into Canada might mean that to others if we're considering territory and so forth. We'd need to establish categories for everything ranging from Membership down to individual rackets (drugs, loansharking, gambling etc) and lay out who has more influence in each set category. Given the fluidity of the Mafia as well as the fact that we don't have complete information, we'd have to go by published/official sources and develop a methodology for measuring.. I'd take my hat off for every attempted such an endeavor.

I think we should differentiate between individuals and families.

For families simple numbers prevail ultimately. The more guys the more guns, the more guys the more opportunities and rackets, the more money the more power.

I think if we look at the Castellammarese war in its fullest extent, the largest family prevailed. The boss of bosses of a smaller family would've never lasted long. I think Luciano didn't accept/acknowledge Maranzano for this reason. His confidence was based on the guns he commanded.

John Dicky wrote in his book that while Bontate and Inzerillo were politically the most powerful, the Corleonesi were militarily the strongest. The rest is history.

[Angelo Santino]

Power means different things to different people (inside and outside, close and far away). The Genovese's 300+ membership (whatever the number) would win in the Most Membership if that's what we're going by. The Bonanno's international reach into Canada might mean that to others if we're considering territory and so forth. We'd need to establish categories for everything ranging from Membership down to individual rackets (drugs, loansharking, gambling etc) and lay out who has more influence in each set category. Given the fluidity of the Mafia as well as the fact that we don't have complete information, we'd have to go by published/official sources and develop a methodology for measuring.. I'd take my hat off for every attempted such an endeavor.

I think we should differentiate between individuals and families.

For families simple numbers prevail ultimately. The more guys the more guns, the more guys the more opportunities and rackets, the more money the more power.

I think if we look at the Castellammarese war in its fullest extent, the largest family prevailed. The boss of bosses of a smaller family would've never lasted long. I think Luciano didn't accept/acknowledge Maranzano for this reason. His confidence was based on the guns he commanded.

John Dicky wrote in his book that while Bontate and Inzerillo were politically the most powerful, the Corleonesi were militarily the strongest. The rest is history.

I kinda have to disagree on a few things, although you bring up some good points.

1 More members ≠ more power as an absolute. If that was a definitive then Masseria, Sonny Red, Orena, Stanfa all would have been the victors. In almost every internal mob war, the boss seems to start with the majority of support, because neutralists in the center fall behind whoever's boss but realistically, can rarely be counted on for active support. Granted money members technically means more money being sent up if we are weighing that instead of active manpower.

2 Dickie did but he also explained where their strength came from, the Corleonesi Family never outnumbered 40 members at any given time, the Corleonesi Faction however consisted of affiliates/bosses from other groups in a political maneuver/takeover allied with the Cor. Calderone stated in his book that the Palermitani were more wealthy but the Corleonesi were more cunning.

3 Total Membership would be one category, active members another, inactive. It's all statistics and we could keep breaking things down to the limit of infinity. It's nothing I would ever wish to attempt because for one it'd be alot of work but we just have no way of knowing everything. If we were to test trial a Family right now and compile information about them today or in 2000, are we able to compile anything near even 60% of all the info? I'm doubtful.

[gohnjotti]

Perfect example with the Orena faction by the way, CC. The Orena faction was 3/4 of the family, and had far more rackets going on. Pretty much all of the Colombo family’s union bigwigs went into the Orena camp, including Cutolo, Scopo, Petrizzo, etc. The Persico faction had loansharking, loansharking, gambling, and more loansharking. They won the war because, by the end of 1991, the close-knit, familial relationships within the 25 or so Persico faction members meant they held strong and continued to meet and plan wartime movements, while the Orena faction fragmented because Orena wasn’t as close with his supporters, was not actively coordinating wartime movements and hits, and was not even able to get in touch with many members of his faction since a lot of them were in hiding. By 1993, the Persico faction was down to almost nothing due to all the prosecutions, but the Orena faction was, in practical terms, non-existent. There was nobody in charge giving direct orders other than a disorganised, rotating ruling panel, even though the faction’s two heaviest hitting crews - Cutolo crew and Amato crew - were still active on the streets. And, of course, you had Big Sal Miciotta picking the bones.

So who was more powerful? The faction with the most numbers and net worth, or the faction with the most central chain of command? You could use the Orena faction as a metaphor for the 1990s Gambinos and the Persico faction for the 1990s Bonannos.

[Lupara]

Power means different things to different people (inside and outside, close and far away). The Genovese's 300+ membership (whatever the number) would win in the Most Membership if that's what we're going by. The Bonanno's international reach into Canada might mean that to others if we're considering territory and so forth. We'd need to establish categories for everything ranging from Membership down to individual rackets (drugs, loansharking, gambling etc) and lay out who has more influence in each set category. Given the fluidity of the Mafia as well as the fact that we don't have complete information, we'd have to go by published/official sources and develop a methodology for measuring.. I'd take my hat off for every attempted such an endeavor.

I think we should differentiate between individuals and families.

For families simple numbers prevail ultimately. The more guys the more guns, the more guys the more opportunities and rackets, the more money the more power.

I think if we look at the Castellammarese war in its fullest extent, the largest family prevailed. The boss of bosses of a smaller family would've never lasted long. I think Luciano didn't accept/acknowledge Maranzano for this reason. His confidence was based on the guns he commanded.

John Dicky wrote in his book that while Bontate and Inzerillo were politically the most powerful, the Corleonesi were militarily the strongest. The rest is history.

I kinda have to disagree on a few things, although you bring up some good points.

1 More members ≠ more power as an absolute. If that was a definitive then Masseria, Sonny Red, Orena, Stanfa all would have been the victors. In almost every internal mob war, the boss seems to start with the majority of support, because neutralists in the center fall behind whoever's boss but realistically, can rarely be counted on for active support. Granted money members technically means more money being sent up if we are weighing that instead of active manpower.

2 Dickie did but he also explained where their strength came from, the Corleonesi Family never outnumbered 40 members at any given time, the Corleonesi Faction however consisted of affiliates/bosses from other groups in a political maneuver/takeover allied with the Cor. Calderone stated in his book that the Palermitani were more wealthy but the Corleonesi were more cunning.

3 Total Membership would be one category, active members another, inactive. It's all statistics and we could keep breaking things down to the limit of infinity. It's nothing I would ever wish to attempt because for one it'd be alot of work but we just have no way of knowing everything. If we were to test trial a Family right now and compile information about them today or in 2000, are we able to compile anything near even 60% of all the info? I'm doubtful.

Masseria lost because he was betrayed from within. He didn't lose because he was outgunned by Maranzano.

As for Sonny Red, I didn't know he headed the largest faction. But even if the Rastelli/Massino faction was smaller, they were backed by the Commission. If Sonny Red commanded a thousand men I very much doubt there would've been a Commission that would've tried anything against him. He would've probably headed that Commission too.

And Stanfa lost because his faction was busted which gave Merlino and his guys the opportunity to step in.

I'm also fairly certain there's a correlation between total and active members.

I agree that it is not an absolute, but more members = more power (or visa versa) is usually the case.

[Angelo Santino]

Power means different things to different people (inside and outside, close and far away). The Genovese's 300+ membership (whatever the number) would win in the Most Membership if that's what we're going by. The Bonanno's international reach into Canada might mean that to others if we're considering territory and so forth. We'd need to establish categories for everything ranging from Membership down to individual rackets (drugs, loansharking, gambling etc) and lay out who has more influence in each set category. Given the fluidity of the Mafia as well as the fact that we don't have complete information, we'd have to go by published/official sources and develop a methodology for measuring.. I'd take my hat off for every attempted such an endeavor.

I think we should differentiate between individuals and families.

For families simple numbers prevail ultimately. The more guys the more guns, the more guys the more opportunities and rackets, the more money the more power.

I think if we look at the Castellammarese war in its fullest extent, the largest family prevailed. The boss of bosses of a smaller family would've never lasted long. I think Luciano didn't accept/acknowledge Maranzano for this reason. His confidence was based on the guns he commanded.

John Dicky wrote in his book that while Bontate and Inzerillo were politically the most powerful, the Corleonesi were militarily the strongest. The rest is history.

I kinda have to disagree on a few things, although you bring up some good points.

1 More members ≠ more power as an absolute. If that was a definitive then Masseria, Sonny Red, Orena, Stanfa all would have been the victors. In almost every internal mob war, the boss seems to start with the majority of support, because neutralists in the center fall behind whoever's boss but realistically, can rarely be counted on for active support. Granted money members technically means more money being sent up if we are weighing that instead of active manpower.

2 Dickie did but he also explained where their strength came from, the Corleonesi Family never outnumbered 40 members at any given time, the Corleonesi Faction however consisted of affiliates/bosses from other groups in a political maneuver/takeover allied with the Cor. Calderone stated in his book that the Palermitani were more wealthy but the Corleonesi were more cunning.

3 Total Membership would be one category, active members another, inactive. It's all statistics and we could keep breaking things down to the limit of infinity. It's nothing I would ever wish to attempt because for one it'd be alot of work but we just have no way of knowing everything. If we were to test trial a Family right now and compile information about them today or in 2000, are we able to compile anything near even 60% of all the info? I'm doubtful.

Masseria lost because he was betrayed from within. He didn't lose because he was outgunned by Maranzano.

As for Sonny Red, I didn't know he headed the largest faction. But even if the Rastelli/Massino faction was smaller, they were backed by the Commission. If Sonny Red commanded a thousand men I very much doubt there would've been a Commission that would've tried anything against him. He would've probably headed that Commission too.

And Stanfa lost because his faction was busted which gave Merlino and his guys the opportunity to step in.

I'm also fairly certain there's a correlation between total and active members.

I agree that it is not an absolute, but more members = more power (or visa versa) is usually the case.

He was killed from within, but the overall war is pretty much congruent with other mob wars. One could argue that Stanfa lost because he was locked up and so Merlino didn't truly win.

1 Masseria as Boss of Bosses and as head of the largest Family with support from the Gambino and Colombos likely seemed untouchable compared to the other side- rebel factions from the Lucchese and Bonanno organizations (we don't know if every Bonanno and Lucchese followed Maranzano-Gagliano in their entirety or if the groups split internally.)

1B Despite Masseria's membership size, his side appeared to suffer more casualties, the murders of Pinzola and Mineo removed his trifecta alliance and those posts/groups were filled with neutral/non-Masseria backed allies. In Dec of 1930, the commission removed Masseria from the B.O.B. position, a stunning move that would not have been possible to enforce a year prior. Politically he was capped.

1C This wasn't a war of attrition, rather than shoot-em-up St Valentines style, every murder appeared to be a strategic hit meant to disrupt the other's side/influence. Morello and Ferrigno's are examples of this.

2 Yes, Stanfa lost because Merlino's guys were in it to win it, but at the start of it, everyone assumed that Stanfa had the numbers, manpower and NY and Sicilian connections to thwart this faction of Soldiers and their associate clique. This is very similar to the Castellammarese war, Maranzano was underestimated too, he had the smaller numbers. But on the other hand, not everyone allied with Masseria or in his own group could be counted on to launch a 300-style attack.

3 Sonny Red was on the ruling panel early one, almost everyone including the other admin were allied with them. Massino/Napolitano constituted a smaller faction. It's in the 1980-81 chart I did on the Bonannos. JD was the source for the info.

4 Having more members doesn't hurt, it's not insignificant but it's not an end-all. Would you rather be a NY captain in the 1960's with 15 soldiers under you facing harassment from the top hoodlum program and FBI following you around, tallying up how much money you spend, looking to jam you up on tax evasion or any criminal activity they can link you to? Or would you rather be a captain in PA in charge of an entire city with 2 members under you and your tribute required for anything illegal going on in the city complete with the lack of FBI scrutiny allowing to make connections with the Chief of Police, local judges and enjoy vacations in Florida with them in a semi-legitimate fashion?

Also, while these numbers have to be included, it does not account for who is truly significant in that organization. Let's assume in Phila that Pete Tuccio is now made because he brings in 10k a month. Who is more respected, Tuccio or Charlie White who, for sake of the conversation is retired from active crimie but still a member in that he's around them? Probably White. But now let's say Phila. and the DeCavalcante's went to war tomorrow, who would be at the forefront on Philly's side, Tuccio or White? It's a matter of statistics and altering the input to fit the answer people are trying to acheive and answer.

[Lupara]

I do not necessarily disagree with your arguments, but I think you should not overlook the fact that support from others is also equal to manpower.

A capo with just 2 guys under him being recognised by the Commission in effect means he has hundreds of people behind him.

I think one can define power in having the ability to withstand (physical) assault from your enemies. It just depends on how you look at it. From my pov, numbers are crucial because most often it correlates with the other essentials.

Ofcourse it isn't everything, but the correlation is always there.

Alexander and Djenghis Khan were initially outnumbered too, but once they won their empire and armies became the biggest by default.

[gohnjotti]

How about we narrow down the definition of power, so we stop arguing over nothing. There’s monetary power, “militaristic” power (a crime group’s capacity to kill), organisational power (the lines of communication between admin and capo), etc., etc., etc.

The Gambinos of the 1990s were both more powerful and less powerful than the Bonannos of the 1990s, in different ways.