Chicago and the Camorra

[PolackTony]

How to best conceptualize the Chicago Outfit in respect to other American CN families has been a contentious topic. The disagreement on these points, however, has been productive of useful debates on this forum. Part of the issue I think has been that the differences between the Outfit and other CN families have been somewhat overstated historically. So post-Family Secrets and with better access to sources and new analyses people have had to hash out a more nuanced and adequate understanding of the Outfit. And of course I think people like @Chris Christie and others have made good points that other "traditional" CN families at times have played loose with some of the traditions as well.

Having said that, it is very important to situate the Outfit in respect to both the tensions between mainland Southern Italian influences and the pre-Outfit Sicilian family in Chicago (and the national CN), as well as the unique way that the Outfit formed as a nucleus within the Capone Syndicate. The early architects of the Outfit (Capone, Ricca, Campagna, Nitto) clearly adapted and used the CN structures and traditions in the ways that they found useful, and on their own terms.

The Outfit of course is notable in the numbers of, and high ranking leadership roles played by, Napoletani (as well as Pugliesi, Calabresi, and Lucani). While some have stated that part of what gave the Outfit its distinctive character, particularly early on, is likely due to Camorra influences, these potential Camorra influences need to be explored more rigorously. I'm by no means anything like an expert on the Camorra, but they have had their own initiation practices and understanding of membership of course, which changed over time from the 19th century "Bella Societa Riformata" (which would've provided the model for Napoletani influences in the formation of the Outfit) to the 20th century versions. I've read that they used tests of bravery as well as a simple oath of loyalty. These make sense given that we do have info from the pre-Aiuppa Outfit that guys did at times have to take some sort of oath (plus stories about Capone having people swear on a Bible?), as well as accounts that guys were considered made after having proved themselves in work or challenges set by their sponsor. These could very well be examples of Camorra influences. Another potential Camorra influence of course is the territorial nature of Outfit power bases and crews. Also, the Camorra has had a two-tier notion of membership, with an upper and a lower organization. This is interesting given that the Outfit has always had "Outfit guys" who were part of the syndicate or soldiers in the various crews, and then made guys who formed the core of the leadership. As with the Camorra, the model is a secret society embedded within a broader criminal network.

The latter two points -- territoriality and two tiers -- I think are due to both the Camorra background and to the historical idiosyncrasies of the development of Chicago OC. By which I mean that that the Chicago context provided particular incentives and opportunities for certain organizational models partly derived from the Camorra to take hold. So not only were the architects of the modern Outfit Napoletani, their traditions also happened to be particularly useful and successful in the Chicago context.

Another area to explore though are the differences between the Camorra as it existed in urban Napoli and the versions practiced in the Campanian countryside. My understanding is that the latter was much less formalized and structured. Clearly there was not a single Camorra model at play, but likely a range of related and dynamic Campanian practices, derived from the formal Camorra as well as a continuum of social networks and organizations ranging from formal political structures to brigandage. What do we know of Camorra-type organizations in, say, late 19th and early 20th century Salerno or Avellino?

[Confederate]

The Outfit was always somewhat different than New York from the very beginning. As I said previously, there is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit changed their structure from 1927 when they GROSSED $105 million in business to something different in 1928 when Capone was "made" by Masseria for "Political" reasons. Capone then "Made" 10 other men who were already in high positions in his gang. There is no real evidence that new "titles" were given to anybody so they could sound just like New York.
As long as Capone was the Boss & Italians in high positions were now "made", they now belonged to the National LCN. However, guys like Guzik were still members of the Capone Syndicate. Nothing changed for him. Guzik simply wasn't a member of the National LCN which really didn't matter to Capone or anyone else in Chicago. There is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit in 1931 even have a formal making Ceremony "exactly" like New York.
They never had anybody with the "Title" of Consigliere back at that time either. Calling someone a "Capodecina" is a New York term that some people simply "apply" to the Outfit trying to explain something during that time period. There is no evidence that Capone called somebody in his Organization a "Capodecina". I've never seen it?
The Outfit never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" back in those days either. All they did was a few things to "adapt" to the LCN "Model" but they were still somewhat different & it didn't matter & nobody cared except a few researchers in 2020. Nobody in New York cared one bit whether Guzik was a Member of the Outfit or if he was technically now an Associate. It comes under the heading of "Sicilian Obsession" IMO. But hey, maybe I'm wrong?
But that is my honest observation & no offense intended toward anyone.

[Antiliar]

The Outfit was always somewhat different than New York from the very beginning. As I said previously, there is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit changed their structure from 1927 when they GROSSED $105 million in business to something different in 1928 when Capone was "made" by Masseria for "Political" reasons. Capone then "Made" 10 other men who were already in high positions in his gang. There is no real evidence that new "titles" were given to anybody so they could sound just like New York.
As long as Capone was the Boss & Italians in high positions were now "made", they now belonged to the National LCN. However, guys like Guzik were still members of the Capone Syndicate. Nothing changed for him. Guzik simply wasn't a member of the National LCN which really didn't matter to Capone or anyone else in Chicago. There is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit in 1931 even have a formal making Ceremony "exactly" like New York.
They never had anybody with the "Title" of Consigliere back at that time either. Calling someone a "Capodecina" is a New York term that some people simply "apply" to the Outfit trying to explain something during that time period. There is no evidence that Capone called somebody in his Organization a "Capodecina". I've never seen it?
The Outfit never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" back in those days either. All they did was a few things to "adapt" to the LCN "Model" but they were still somewhat different & it didn't matter & nobody cared except a few researchers in 2020. Nobody in New York cared one bit whether Guzik was a Member of the Outfit or if he was technically now an Associate. It comes under the heading of "Sicilian Obsession" IMO. But hey, maybe I'm wrong?
But that is my honest observation & no offense intended toward anyone.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not the part about the argument about evidence. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. In other words, because you personally haven't seen evidence for something, it doesn't follow that it didn't happen. Maybe you are unaware of the evidence that someone else has seen. Maybe there was evidence, but over the years it was lost or destroyed. Or maybe they didn't keep records except in people's memories. I also disagree about the use of titles. Titles have to be used at least to explain what rank a person has to a member of a different Family. Maybe in Chicago they could say, "Joey's the boss of our crew now," but when Joey goes to New York, Sam may tell Fat Tony, "We promoted Joey to captain last month." Something like that. Although the Outfit has its own uniqueness, it still operates within the American Cosa Nostra. (Capodecina, by the ways, comes from Sicily.)

[Villain]

I agree what Confederate said.

Capone was already the boss of his own organization that controlled more than half of Chicago and later simply became a boss over another already established Sicilian organization or fraternity in that same city. He simply made his ten men and probably gave them some type of positions, but those same guys were already bosses of certain and much larger areas. Capone was already a leader and his organization was obviously multiethnic.

Capone already had much more soldiers than his opponents and once he became official Boss of the Mafia in Chicago, he was be able to choose his own type of administration and hierarchy. Capone's so called "decina" dominated Chicago for the next 50 years, and the alleged official captain status was obviously changed probably at the start.

The Torrio/Capone mob started as a simple multiethnic organization with a boss and few lieutenants and that was it. Until the late 70s there were no Sicilian type of ceremonies (this is completely backed by docs from the Giancana era) and it wasnt like Giancana nixed the whole thing, but instead during those days we have good inside FBI info that completely confirms the rumors from the previous decades. In 1945 Blasi was only told that he was "in" right?! We also cant see any needles or cards during the 1956 ceremony... And above all, they never had the traditional hierarchy, even when they began using needles and cards of saints decades later

[Confederate]

The Outfit was always somewhat different than New York from the very beginning. As I said previously, there is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit changed their structure from 1927 when they GROSSED $105 million in business to something different in 1928 when Capone was "made" by Masseria for "Political" reasons. Capone then "Made" 10 other men who were already in high positions in his gang. There is no real evidence that new "titles" were given to anybody so they could sound just like New York.
As long as Capone was the Boss & Italians in high positions were now "made", they now belonged to the National LCN. However, guys like Guzik were still members of the Capone Syndicate. Nothing changed for him. Guzik simply wasn't a member of the National LCN which really didn't matter to Capone or anyone else in Chicago. There is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit in 1931 even have a formal making Ceremony "exactly" like New York.
They never had anybody with the "Title" of Consigliere back at that time either. Calling someone a "Capodecina" is a New York term that some people simply "apply" to the Outfit trying to explain something during that time period. There is no evidence that Capone called somebody in his Organization a "Capodecina". I've never seen it?
The Outfit never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" back in those days either. All they did was a few things to "adapt" to the LCN "Model" but they were still somewhat different & it didn't matter & nobody cared except a few researchers in 2020. Nobody in New York cared one bit whether Guzik was a Member of the Outfit or if he was technically now an Associate. It comes under the heading of "Sicilian Obsession" IMO. But hey, maybe I'm wrong?
But that is my honest observation & no offense intended toward anyone.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not the part about the argument about evidence. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. In other words, because you personally haven't seen evidence for something, it doesn't follow that it didn't happen. Maybe you are unaware of the evidence that someone else has seen. Maybe there was evidence, but over the years it was lost or destroyed. Or maybe they didn't keep records except in people's memories. I also disagree about the use of titles. Titles have to be used at least to explain what rank a person has to a member of a different Family. Maybe in Chicago they could say, "Joey's the boss of our crew now," but when Joey goes to New York, Sam may tell Fat Tony, "We promoted Joey to captain last month." Something like that. Although the Outfit has its own uniqueness, it still operates within the American Cosa Nostra. (Capodecina, by the ways, comes from Sicily.)

But that's all we can go on is evidence. I mean, you are a man of facts, correct? So, if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a making Ceremony like New York; if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a position called "Consigliere"; if there's no evidence of Capone calling one of his men a "Capodecina"; then that's all we can go by. The "burden of proof" is on someone else to prove otherwise.

Also, your example of "Sam may tell Fat Tony we promoted Joey to Captain last month" is completely hypothetical with no evidence. We have no idea how Sam Giancana described Outfit guys to Fat Tony. For all we know, he might have just said "Joey is our guy that handles that Union".
You can't say otherwise.

Nobody ever said the Outfit didn't operate within the American Cosa Nostra. The "Point" is that the "Titles" used in New York were not all used in Chicago & I truly believe you know it. Trying to use the exact structure & the exact terminology of New York for Chicago in the old days is inaccurate & is only done for discussion purposes for "outsiders" like us for some kind of continuity of understanding. That's it. Calling Tony Accardo the "Consigliere" of the Outfit is complete nonsense. Reading how the Outfit guys talked about Accardo, he was called the Boss or he was the Man, or he was Joe Batters. Period. Nobody called him the "Consigliere" of the Outfit. lol

Lastly, I know "Capodedina" is an Italian term. It means Boss of Ten. My point was that New York used that terminology. There is no evidence that Al Capone used that term. I seriously doubt that Capone "changed his terminology" after 1927 so he could sound more "Sicilian". I really think a couple of you guys read too much of this "Sicilian" thing into The Outfit so it can fit neatly into a nice consistent package. Anyway, no harm in discussing it, but that's the way I see it.

[JeremyTheJew]

The Outfit was always somewhat different than New York from the very beginning. As I said previously, there is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit changed their structure from 1927 when they GROSSED $105 million in business to something different in 1928 when Capone was "made" by Masseria for "Political" reasons. Capone then "Made" 10 other men who were already in high positions in his gang. There is no real evidence that new "titles" were given to anybody so they could sound just like New York.
As long as Capone was the Boss & Italians in high positions were now "made", they now belonged to the National LCN. However, guys like Guzik were still members of the Capone Syndicate. Nothing changed for him. Guzik simply wasn't a member of the National LCN which really didn't matter to Capone or anyone else in Chicago. There is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit in 1931 even have a formal making Ceremony "exactly" like New York.
They never had anybody with the "Title" of Consigliere back at that time either. Calling someone a "Capodecina" is a New York term that some people simply "apply" to the Outfit trying to explain something during that time period. There is no evidence that Capone called somebody in his Organization a "Capodecina". I've never seen it?
The Outfit never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" back in those days either. All they did was a few things to "adapt" to the LCN "Model" but they were still somewhat different & it didn't matter & nobody cared except a few researchers in 2020. Nobody in New York cared one bit whether Guzik was a Member of the Outfit or if he was technically now an Associate. It comes under the heading of "Sicilian Obsession" IMO. But hey, maybe I'm wrong?
But that is my honest observation & no offense intended toward anyone.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not the part about the argument about evidence. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. In other words, because you personally haven't seen evidence for something, it doesn't follow that it didn't happen. Maybe you are unaware of the evidence that someone else has seen. Maybe there was evidence, but over the years it was lost or destroyed. Or maybe they didn't keep records except in people's memories. I also disagree about the use of titles. Titles have to be used at least to explain what rank a person has to a member of a different Family. Maybe in Chicago they could say, "Joey's the boss of our crew now," but when Joey goes to New York, Sam may tell Fat Tony, "We promoted Joey to captain last month." Something like that. Although the Outfit has its own uniqueness, it still operates within the American Cosa Nostra. (Capodecina, by the ways, comes from Sicily.)

But that's all we can go on is evidence. I mean, you are a man of facts, correct? So, if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a making Ceremony like New York; if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a position called "Consigliere"; if there's no evidence of Capone calling one of his men a "Capodecina"; then that's all we can go by. The "burden of proof" is on someone else to prove otherwise.

Also, your example of "Sam may tell Fat Tony we promoted Joey to Captain last month" is completely hypothetical with no evidence. We have no idea how Sam Giancana described Outfit guys to Fat Tony. For all we know, he might have just said "Joey is our guy that handles that Union".
You can't say otherwise.

Nobody ever said the Outfit didn't operate within the American Cosa Nostra. The "Point" is that the "Titles" used in New York were not all used in Chicago & I truly believe you know it. Trying to use the exact structure & the exact terminology of New York for Chicago in the old days is inaccurate & is only done for discussion purposes for "outsiders" like us for some kind of continuity of understanding. That's it. Calling Tony Accardo the "Consigliere" of the Outfit is complete nonsense. Reading how the Outfit guys talked about Accardo, he was called the Boss or he was the Man, or he was Joe Batters. Period. Nobody called him the "Consigliere" of the Outfit. lol

Lastly, I know "Capodedina" is an Italian term. It means Boss of Ten. My point was that New York used that terminology. There is no evidence that Al Capone used that term. I seriously doubt that Capone "changed his terminology" after 1927 so he could sound more "Sicilian". I really think a couple of you guys read too much of this "Sicilian" thing into The Outfit so it can fit neatly into a nice consistent package. Anyway, no harm in discussing it, but that's the way I see it.

100

[PolackTony]

There is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit in 1931 even have a formal making Ceremony "exactly" like New York.
They never had anybody with the "Title" of Consigliere back at that time either. Calling someone a "Capodecina" is a New York term that some people simply "apply" to the Outfit trying to explain something during that time period. There is no evidence that Capone called somebody in his Organization a "Capodecina". I've never seen it?

We will likely never know what Capone called his made captains or lieutenants, of course. While it's certainly possible that either he or Ricca adopted some of these terms to describe their power structure, we have no way to know one way or the other. Is it not the case that at least later crew bosses were called capos? FBI documents from the 1960s do use this term for Chicago, though I suppose that this is a problem of attributed speech. As in: did Chicago guys use the term and that's how the Feds applied it? Did guys from other families use the term when discussing Outfit guys with their FBI handlers? Or did the feds simply apply this term to Chicago because that was the "LCN" template that they had available to make sense of it?

[PolackTony]

As a related point, FBI documents refer to the Chicago "brugad", but this term seems to be derived from LA based informants who may be applying their terms to Chicago.

[Antiliar]

But that's all we can go on is evidence. I mean, you are a man of facts, correct? So, if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a making Ceremony like New York; if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a position called "Consigliere"; if there's no evidence of Capone calling one of his men a "Capodecina"; then that's all we can go by. The "burden of proof" is on someone else to prove otherwise.

Also, your example of "Sam may tell Fat Tony we promoted Joey to Captain last month" is completely hypothetical with no evidence. We have no idea how Sam Giancana described Outfit guys to Fat Tony. For all we know, he might have just said "Joey is our guy that handles that Union".
You can't say otherwise.

Nobody ever said the Outfit didn't operate within the American Cosa Nostra. The "Point" is that the "Titles" used in New York were not all used in Chicago & I truly believe you know it. Trying to use the exact structure & the exact terminology of New York for Chicago in the old days is inaccurate & is only done for discussion purposes for "outsiders" like us for some kind of continuity of understanding. That's it. Calling Tony Accardo the "Consigliere" of the Outfit is complete nonsense. Reading how the Outfit guys talked about Accardo, he was called the Boss or he was the Man, or he was Joe Batters. Period. Nobody called him the "Consigliere" of the Outfit. lol

Lastly, I know "Capodedina" is an Italian term. It means Boss of Ten. My point was that New York used that terminology. There is no evidence that Al Capone used that term. I seriously doubt that Capone "changed his terminology" after 1927 so he could sound more "Sicilian". I really think a couple of you guys read too much of this "Sicilian" thing into The Outfit so it can fit neatly into a nice consistent package. Anyway, no harm in discussing it, but that's the way I see it.

First, unless you're omniscient you don't know if there is evidence out there somewhere. All you can speak for is yourself and what you know. It would be fair to say that you are not aware of any evidence for X. Let me give an example. A few years ago Villain found a doc on Mary Ferrell saying that Phil D'Andrea had headed the Chinatown crew. The day before he found that doc he was unaware that Phil D'Andrea headed the crew and he could have said, "There's no evidence that Phil D'Andrea ever headed the Chinatown crew." But there was evidence buried in a file he hadn't seen before that he found the next day. So to reiterate, there's a mountain of difference between the absolute statement "There is no evidence for X" versus "I am not aware of any evidence for X."

We also do have evidence that members of other groups used traditional terms for Chicago members, such as Jimmy Fratianno, Louis Piscopo, and Angelo Lonardo. How would any of them have known who had what rank unless someone from Chicago told them?

Terms like capodecina weren't only used in New York. They were used all over the country. Chicago had to be familiar with them even if they didn't use those terms everyday.

Finally, my analogy wasn't about Sam Giancana. You took it too literally. I just picked random names that popped up in my head. Saying that "Joey is our guy who handles the unions" isn't the same as saying "Joey was upped to captain." The meaning it totally different, so yeah, I can say otherwise.

[Pete]

The Outfit was always somewhat different than New York from the very beginning. As I said previously, there is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit changed their structure from 1927 when they GROSSED $105 million in business to something different in 1928 when Capone was "made" by Masseria for "Political" reasons. Capone then "Made" 10 other men who were already in high positions in his gang. There is no real evidence that new "titles" were given to anybody so they could sound just like New York.
As long as Capone was the Boss & Italians in high positions were now "made", they now belonged to the National LCN. However, guys like Guzik were still members of the Capone Syndicate. Nothing changed for him. Guzik simply wasn't a member of the National LCN which really didn't matter to Capone or anyone else in Chicago. There is no evidence I've seen that the Outfit in 1931 even have a formal making Ceremony "exactly" like New York.
They never had anybody with the "Title" of Consigliere back at that time either. Calling someone a "Capodecina" is a New York term that some people simply "apply" to the Outfit trying to explain something during that time period. There is no evidence that Capone called somebody in his Organization a "Capodecina". I've never seen it?
The Outfit never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" back in those days either. All they did was a few things to "adapt" to the LCN "Model" but they were still somewhat different & it didn't matter & nobody cared except a few researchers in 2020. Nobody in New York cared one bit whether Guzik was a Member of the Outfit or if he was technically now an Associate. It comes under the heading of "Sicilian Obsession" IMO. But hey, maybe I'm wrong?
But that is my honest observation & no offense intended toward anyone.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not the part about the argument about evidence. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. In other words, because you personally haven't seen evidence for something, it doesn't follow that it didn't happen. Maybe you are unaware of the evidence that someone else has seen. Maybe there was evidence, but over the years it was lost or destroyed. Or maybe they didn't keep records except in people's memories. I also disagree about the use of titles. Titles have to be used at least to explain what rank a person has to a member of a different Family. Maybe in Chicago they could say, "Joey's the boss of our crew now," but when Joey goes to New York, Sam may tell Fat Tony, "We promoted Joey to captain last month." Something like that. Although the Outfit has its own uniqueness, it still operates within the American Cosa Nostra. (Capodecina, by the ways, comes from Sicily.)

But that's all we can go on is evidence. I mean, you are a man of facts, correct? So, if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a making Ceremony like New York; if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a position called "Consigliere"; if there's no evidence of Capone calling one of his men a "Capodecina"; then that's all we can go by. The "burden of proof" is on someone else to prove otherwise.

Also, your example of "Sam may tell Fat Tony we promoted Joey to Captain last month" is completely hypothetical with no evidence. We have no idea how Sam Giancana described Outfit guys to Fat Tony. For all we know, he might have just said "Joey is our guy that handles that Union".
You can't say otherwise.

Nobody ever said the Outfit didn't operate within the American Cosa Nostra. The "Point" is that the "Titles" used in New York were not all used in Chicago & I truly believe you know it. Trying to use the exact structure & the exact terminology of New York for Chicago in the old days is inaccurate & is only done for discussion purposes for "outsiders" like us for some kind of continuity of understanding. That's it. Calling Tony Accardo the "Consigliere" of the Outfit is complete nonsense. Reading how the Outfit guys talked about Accardo, he was called the Boss or he was the Man, or he was Joe Batters. Period. Nobody called him the "Consigliere" of the Outfit. lol

Lastly, I know "Capodedina" is an Italian term. It means Boss of Ten. My point was that New York used that terminology. There is no evidence that Al Capone used that term. I seriously doubt that Capone "changed his terminology" after 1927 so he could sound more "Sicilian". I really think a couple of you guys read too much of this "Sicilian" thing into The Outfit so it can fit neatly into a nice consistent package. Anyway, no harm in discussing it, but that's the way I see it.

This is spot on. Accardo didn’t need an official title. His reputation spoke for itself. Even capo was used in certain circles. On grand ave they called Joey the boss not their captain. I wish for once and for all we could just say some families are different and it’s ok. Did Tampa have a consigliere? Did New Orleans? The best info to go by is what members said. When Nick calabrese was asked under oath what was Tony accqrdos position in the 70’s-80’s he said former boss. That’s it. And he laid out the entire hierarchy boss underboss and captains never once mentioned consigliere. Let’s let the myth die.some will still disagree but nick also laid out boss succession and he was asked about ferriola specifically. He was never the boss. Some things just need to die and I don’t get the people that fight against it. If you wanna believe roemer over an actual member be my guess but be happy living in ignorance. Also since capo wasn’t used in certain circles they could have heard joe nick being referred to as the boss like the clown was. Doesn’t mean boss of the outfit just means boss of whoever said it. Now you have articles solly is consigliere, now pudgy, now Joey a, now Marco when there was never such a position. I probably shouldn’t care this much but it drives me mad and I can’t take anyone seriously that says Chicago has a consigliere when they most likely don’t have an overall boss

[Confederate]

But that's all we can go on is evidence. I mean, you are a man of facts, correct? So, if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a making Ceremony like New York; if there is no evidence that the Outfit in Capone's day had a position called "Consigliere"; if there's no evidence of Capone calling one of his men a "Capodecina"; then that's all we can go by. The "burden of proof" is on someone else to prove otherwise.

Also, your example of "Sam may tell Fat Tony we promoted Joey to Captain last month" is completely hypothetical with no evidence. We have no idea how Sam Giancana described Outfit guys to Fat Tony. For all we know, he might have just said "Joey is our guy that handles that Union".
You can't say otherwise.

Nobody ever said the Outfit didn't operate within the American Cosa Nostra. The "Point" is that the "Titles" used in New York were not all used in Chicago & I truly believe you know it. Trying to use the exact structure & the exact terminology of New York for Chicago in the old days is inaccurate & is only done for discussion purposes for "outsiders" like us for some kind of continuity of understanding. That's it. Calling Tony Accardo the "Consigliere" of the Outfit is complete nonsense. Reading how the Outfit guys talked about Accardo, he was called the Boss or he was the Man, or he was Joe Batters. Period. Nobody called him the "Consigliere" of the Outfit. lol

Lastly, I know "Capodedina" is an Italian term. It means Boss of Ten. My point was that New York used that terminology. There is no evidence that Al Capone used that term. I seriously doubt that Capone "changed his terminology" after 1927 so he could sound more "Sicilian". I really think a couple of you guys read too much of this "Sicilian" thing into The Outfit so it can fit neatly into a nice consistent package. Anyway, no harm in discussing it, but that's the way I see it.

First, unless you're omniscient you don't know if there is evidence out there somewhere. All you can speak for is yourself and what you know. It would be fair to say that you are not aware of any evidence for X. Let me give an example. A few years ago Villain found a doc on Mary Ferrell saying that Phil D'Andrea had headed the Chinatown crew. The day before he found that doc he was unaware that Phil D'Andrea headed the crew and he could have said, "There's no evidence that Phil D'Andrea ever headed the Chinatown crew." But there was evidence buried in a file he hadn't seen before that he found the next day. So to reiterate, there's a mountain of difference between the absolute statement "There is no evidence for X" versus "I am not aware of any evidence for X."

We also do have evidence that members of other groups used traditional terms for Chicago members, such as Jimmy Fratianno, Louis Piscopo, and Angelo Lonardo. How would any of them have known who had what rank unless someone from Chicago told them?

Terms like capodecina weren't only used in New York. They were used all over the country. Chicago had to be familiar with them even if they didn't use those terms everyday.

Finally, my analogy wasn't about Sam Giancana. You took it too literally. I just picked random names that popped up in my head. Saying that "Joey is our guy who handles the unions" isn't the same as saying "Joey was upped to captain." The meaning it totally different, so yeah, I can say otherwise.

But you don't have any evidence that Capone did use those terms. The burden of Proof is on you to prove it, not on me to prove something that doesn't exist. I KNOW "Capodecina" was used all over the Country, but it wasn't used in Chicago. You can say whatever you want, but the Outfit never used some of those terms. Consigliere was never used in Chicago. Nick Calabrese didn't even use those terms.

OTHER guys in other Families using "their" terms to describe something in the Outfit doesn't prove anything. No offense to anyone, but it sounds like "Sicilian Obsession" to make Chicago "exactly" like one of the Families in New York or another LCN Family somewhere else. The Outfit was never like any Mafia Family before 1928 & it never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" as much as you or anyone else want it to be. The Outfit was a "Syndicate" that "absorbed" the smaller Mafia group in Chicago.

[Confederate]

And let me rephrase saying something "doesn't exist". Let's put it this way, The burden of proof is on you "to make it exist", not me.

[Antiliar]

But you don't have any evidence that Capone did use those terms. The burden of Proof is on you to prove it, not on me to prove something that doesn't exist. I KNOW "Capodecina" was used all over the Country, but it wasn't used in Chicago. You can say whatever you want, but the Outfit never used some of those terms. Consigliere was never used in Chicago. Nick Calabrese didn't even use those terms.

OTHER guys in other Families using "their" terms to describe something in the Outfit doesn't prove anything. No offense to anyone, but it sounds like "Sicilian Obsession" to make Chicago "exactly" like one of the Families in New York or another LCN Family somewhere else. The Outfit was never like any Mafia Family before 1928 & it never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" as much as you or anyone else want it to be. The Outfit was a "Syndicate" that "absorbed" the smaller Mafia group in Chicago.

Unless you have magical psychic powers you have no idea what evidence I have for anything. Are you a mind-reader? It's just arrogant to assume what evidence I have or don't have. The burden of proof is irrelevant here. We're not talking about arguments, just raw evidence. For some reason you seem to confuse awareness of evidence with the actual existence of evidence (except you can't be aware of what evidence another person has unless that person decides to share). But maybe I don't have evidence, but another researcher does. Or maybe the evidence is buried in an FBI file none of us has seen. Evidence is still evidence *even if it has not been discovered yet.* Maybe I'm holding back my evidence for a book. Whatever the case, you don't have to know what evidence any other person has, and the fact that you don't know doesn't mean someone is obligated to show it to you.

And are you telling us that Nick Calabrese never heard of the words "captain" or "consigliere"? Like if he was introduced to a member from New York and told about a capodecina he would have been totally clueless about what it meant? I already explained that Mike Magnafichi said they did use the term "consigliere," it was just applied differently.

And I never said that I wanted the Outfit to "become Sicilian." That's stupid and putting words in my mouth. I've already made clear in previous posts that I don't think that Chicago was "exactly" like New York. But Chicago did have "some" things in common with New York. Ricca, Accardo and Giancana all attended Commission meetings. There were sitdowns between other Families. Members could transfer to other Families. Even if Chicago didn't use terms like "capodecina" themselves they had to be aware of what they meant.

At this point I'm done on the topic of evidence. You believe what you want.

[Confederate]

But you don't have any evidence that Capone did use those terms. The burden of Proof is on you to prove it, not on me to prove something that doesn't exist. I KNOW "Capodecina" was used all over the Country, but it wasn't used in Chicago. You can say whatever you want, but the Outfit never used some of those terms. Consigliere was never used in Chicago. Nick Calabrese didn't even use those terms.

OTHER guys in other Families using "their" terms to describe something in the Outfit doesn't prove anything. No offense to anyone, but it sounds like "Sicilian Obsession" to make Chicago "exactly" like one of the Families in New York or another LCN Family somewhere else. The Outfit was never like any Mafia Family before 1928 & it never all of a sudden became "Sicilian" as much as you or anyone else want it to be. The Outfit was a "Syndicate" that "absorbed" the smaller Mafia group in Chicago.

Unless you have magical psychic powers you have no idea what evidence I have for anything. Are you a mind-reader? It's just arrogant to assume what evidence I have or don't have. The burden of proof is irrelevant here. We're not talking about arguments, just raw evidence. For some reason you seem to confuse awareness of evidence with the actual existence of evidence (except you can't be aware of what evidence another person has unless that person decides to share). But maybe I don't have evidence, but another researcher does. Or maybe the evidence is buried in an FBI file none of us has seen. Evidence is still evidence *even if it has not been discovered yet.* Maybe I'm holding back my evidence for a book. Whatever the case, you don't have to know what evidence any other person has, and the fact that you don't know doesn't mean someone is obligated to show it to you.

And are you telling us that Nick Calabrese never heard of the words "captain" or "consigliere"? Like if he was introduced to a member from New York and told about a capodecina he would have been totally clueless about what it meant? I already explained that Mike Magnafichi said they did use the term "consigliere," it was just applied differently.

And I never said that I wanted the Outfit to "become Sicilian." That's stupid and putting words in my mouth. I've already made clear in previous posts that I don't think that Chicago was "exactly" like New York. But Chicago did have "some" things in common with New York. Ricca, Accardo and Giancana all attended Commission meetings. There were sitdowns between other Families. Members could transfer to other Families. Even if Chicago didn't use terms like "capodecina" themselves they had to be aware of what they meant.

At this point I'm done on the topic of evidence. You believe what you want.

What's the problem? You want to have a discussion but then you get mad when somebody challenges you to produce some evidence & your answer is that you possibly choose not to reveal it. So, you don't debate in good faith? When people debate things, they produce evidence. They don't get mad & say "Maybe I have evidence but don't want to share it". What's the point of debating it? I am truly surprised by your reaction.

In addition, You have no idea what Nick Calabrese would say to some guy from New York & I'm NOT telling you he never heard of those terms. I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit. I did not mean to offend you in anyway & I would look forward to reading your book.

[CabriniGreen]

@PolakTony

That combo of Major and Minor societies was adopted by Ndrangheta.

I'm not sure if Contemporary Camorra groups use it..... I dont know....

I also dont know of ANY Camorra groups during that time that were influential enough to spawn an offshoot.... Anyone know of any powerful Naples clans in Italy during the 1910-20s?