Scalise as Gambino consig

[B.]

Magaddino seems to refer to Frank Scalise as the consigliere at some point. "Tempesta" is his name for Anastasia (Bonanno had a similar nickname for him) and he doesn't outright say Scalise was Anastasia's consigliere but that might be implied.



- Bill Bonanno IDs Frank Scalise as consigliere on a chart in his last book, IDing him under Mangano as boss and Anastasia as boss circa 1940s-1950s. He also IDs Carlo Gambino as "future consigliere" and later refers to Gambino as consigliere at the time he took over the Family. Magaddino confirms Gambino was consigliere at that time, too.

- However in the writing itself Bill Bonanno says Scalise became Anastasia's underboss in 1951 up until his death in 1957, then says Nino Conte took the position. He also says "Tata Chirico" (Chiri) was Anastasia's underboss who was constantly with him in NJ.

- We also know Joe Biondo became consigliere in 1931 but don't know if there is confirmation he held it until 1951, so Scalise may have been consigliere pre-1951 under Mangano and became underboss for Anastasia if this is accurate.

Def a lot of confusion on the timeline but we have both Magaddino and Bill Bonanno IDing Scalise and Gambino as consigliere.

[CabriniGreen]

Magaddino seems to refer to Frank Scalise as the consigliere at some point. "Tempesta" is his name for Anastasia (Bonanno had a similar nickname for him) but he doesn't outright say Scalise was Anastasia's consigliere but that might be implied.



- Bill Bonanno IDs Frank Scalise as consigliere on a chart in his last book, IDing him under Mangano as boss and Anastasia as boss circa 1940s. He also IDs Carlo Gambino as "future consigliere" and later refers to Gambino as consigliere at the time he took over the Family. Magaddino confirms Gambino was consigliere at that time, too.

- However in the writing itself Bill Bonanno says Scalise became Anastasia's underboss in 1951 up until his death in 1957, then says Nino Conte took the position. He also says "Tata Chirico" (Chiri) was Anastasia's underboss who was constantly with him in NJ.

- We also know Joe Biondo became consigliere in 1931 but don't know if there is confirmation he held it until 1951, so Scalise may have been consigliere pre-1951 under Mangano and became underboss for Anastasia if this is accurate.

Def a lot of confusion on the timeline but we have both Magaddino and Bill Bonanno IDing Scalise and Gambino as consigliere.

You think it might be a result of factions in the family?
It kinda reminds me of the relatively recent Bonnanos having 2 whole administrations....

[B.]

The Gambino admin def reflects factionalism, i.e. Dellacroce was underboss/defacto rappresentante over his own group like we see in Philly and a lot of the admin choices appear that way. As for them having split admins pre-1957 I don't think so, though from what Magaddino said after Anastasia's murder the Family did split into two factions who appear to have recognized their own leadership like the Bonanno war. Carlo Gambino was acting boss and we can assume Biondo/Riccobono were in their future positions, while "Dannarao" (ph -- almost surely Tommy Rava) regarded himself as boss of his faction with his own underboss who he killed (probably Robilotto).

[davidf1989]

Wasn't Frank Scalise murdered for selling memberships into the Mafia or something? According to the article below Valachi claimed that happened and that was ordered by Anastasia.

https://gangstersinc.org/profiles/blogs ... -frank-sca

[davidf1989]

I meant to say that according to Valachi the murder of Frank Scalise was ordered by Anastasia?

[B.]

Anastasia ordered it but in Valachi's testimony he clarified that by "selling memberships" he meant associates were making Scalise their business partner and he was inducting them later. Sounds like it was more of an adjustment period for the mafia where earning membership by "earning" was new and the hardened criminals like Valachi who gained membership through murder, etc. saw it as "buying" membership. Probably why Patsy Conte was seen as "buying" his button as he was a businessman.

The idea of being made for being an earner or including superiors as business partners might not have been as common earlier on so there was a culture clash.

[davidf1989]

Anastasia ordered it but in Valachi's testimony he clarified that by "selling memberships" he meant associates were making Scalise their business partner and he was inducting them later. Sounds like it was more of an adjustment period for the mafia where earning membership by "earning" was new and the hardened criminals like Valachi who gained membership through murder, etc. saw it as "buying" membership. Probably why Patsy Conte was seen as "buying" his button as he was a businessman.

The idea of being made for being an earner or including superiors as business partners might not have been as common earlier on so there was a culture clash.

Thanks B for your explanation about the murder of Scalise. So who killed him?

[Ed]

Anastasia ordered it but in Valachi's testimony he clarified that by "selling memberships" he meant associates were making Scalise their business partner and he was inducting them later. Sounds like it was more of an adjustment period for the mafia where earning membership by "earning" was new and the hardened criminals like Valachi who gained membership through murder, etc. saw it as "buying" membership. Probably why Patsy Conte was seen as "buying" his button as he was a businessman.

The idea of being made for being an earner or including superiors as business partners might not have been as common earlier on so there was a culture clash.

A+
A very nuanced interpretation. It seems more likely than what I formerly believed was the naked buying and selling of LCN memberships with money.

The evolution of practices and rules happens in all aspects of life, even criminal life, but I wonder if it still represents a "decline" in the LCN. You are still buying membership, but now it's through the backdoor. It would have impacted the type of individual the organization inducted—less of a zealot and more of a racketeer.

I can see that happening with the decline of familial bonds in the Borgata. How do you decide who to recruit if your son or nephew doesn't want to join the organization? On the other hand, maybe money and the power to earn was always a decisive factor for recruitment, even in the "old days."

I remember reading Sonny Barger's memoir, where he described the distinct evolution of the Hells Angels as an organization. From memory, he said the bikers evolved from "delinquents" in the 1950s to "ruffians" in the 1960s to "gangsters" in the 1970s. (I paraphrased that badly.) It's interesting how groups develop, given the circumstances.

[johnny_scootch]

The Gambino admin def reflects factionalism

Even today with Mickey Paradiso as consigliere.

Thanks B for your explanation about the murder of Scalise. So who killed him?

I believe Jimmy Jerome was involved.

[B.]

A+
A very nuanced interpretation. It seems more likely than what I formerly believed was the naked buying and selling of LCN memberships with money.

The evolution of practices and rules happens in all aspects of life, even criminal life, but I wonder if it still represents a "decline" in the LCN. You are still buying membership, but now it's through the backdoor. It would have impacted the type of individual the organization inducted—less of a zealot and more of a racketeer.

I can see that happening with the decline of familial bonds in the Borgata. How do you decide who to recruit if your son or nephew doesn't want to join the organization? On the other hand, maybe money and the power to earn was always a decisive factor for recruitment, even in the "old days."

I remember reading Sonny Barger's memoir, where he described the distinct evolution of the Hells Angels as an organization. From memory, he said the bikers evolved from "delinquents" in the 1950s to "ruffians" in the 1960s to "gangsters" in the 1970s. (I paraphrased that badly.) It's interesting how groups develop, given the circumstances.

Yep, exactly. Freddy Santantonio's breakdown of the different ways members get proposed adds to it in my opinion. In addition to the traditional methods he mentions earners being made as follows:



I don't believe earners would be excluded from Family meetings if they are made members but you can read into what he said a bit, sounds like he was more dismissive of this member type given he earned membership as a toughguy like Valachi. Valachi's explanation of "buying membership" by making Scalise a business partner is similar to Santantonio saying earners were made for giving money to leaders.

When they made professionals / businessmen earlier in mafia history I don't think they were making them so they could get a cut of their money, as many of them had relation/hometown connections and it was their influence/resources in an industry or field rather than direct tribute that qualified them. I doubt all of the doctors who were made early on were expected to give a percentage of their salary even though they were "earners" by definition.

I'm not aware of any examples offhand of Sicilian mafiosi past or present being made for being "earners" alone either. This might have been part of Americanization and I'm under the impression few members pre-1931 were made for that reason whereas by the 1950s we know it was happening. By the 1970s it was commonplace and you do see some resentment over it but it doesn't seem to have been as controversial by then.

This came up with Massino, as he asked Basciano what the best type of member is and Basciano said killers. Massino corrected him and said they need earners and killers because not everyone has the same strengths basically. Massino testified Basciano had a rep as both a killer and earner, so it's not black and white.

[davidf1989]

A+
A very nuanced interpretation. It seems more likely than what I formerly believed was the naked buying and selling of LCN memberships with money.

The evolution of practices and rules happens in all aspects of life, even criminal life, but I wonder if it still represents a "decline" in the LCN. You are still buying membership, but now it's through the backdoor. It would have impacted the type of individual the organization inducted—less of a zealot and more of a racketeer.

I can see that happening with the decline of familial bonds in the Borgata. How do you decide who to recruit if your son or nephew doesn't want to join the organization? On the other hand, maybe money and the power to earn was always a decisive factor for recruitment, even in the "old days."

I remember reading Sonny Barger's memoir, where he described the distinct evolution of the Hells Angels as an organization. From memory, he said the bikers evolved from "delinquents" in the 1950s to "ruffians" in the 1960s to "gangsters" in the 1970s. (I paraphrased that badly.) It's interesting how groups develop, given the circumstances.

Yep, exactly. Freddy Santantonio's breakdown of the different ways members get proposed adds to it in my opinion. In addition to the traditional methods he mentions earners being made as follows:



I don't believe earners would be excluded from Family meetings if they are made members but you can read into what he said a bit, sounds like he was more dismissive of this member type given he earned membership as a toughguy like Valachi. Valachi's explanation of "buying membership" by making Scalise a business partner is similar to Santantonio saying earners were made for giving money to leaders.

When they made professionals / businessmen earlier in mafia history I don't think they were making them so they could get a cut of their money, as many of them had relation/hometown connections and it was their influence/resources in an industry or field rather than direct tribute that qualified them. I doubt all of the doctors who were made early on were expected to give a percentage of their salary even though they were "earners" by definition.

I'm not aware of any examples offhand of Sicilian mafiosi past or present being made for being "earners" alone either. This might have been part of Americanization and I'm under the impression few members pre-1931 were made for that reason whereas by the 1950s we know it was happening. By the 1970s it was commonplace and you do see some resentment over it but it doesn't seem to have been as controversial by then.

This came up with Massino, as he asked Basciano what the best type of member is and Basciano said killers. Massino corrected him and said they need earners and killers because not everyone has the same strengths basically. Massino testified Basciano had a rep as both a killer and earner, so it's not black and white.

Thanks for your detailed explanation and many infamous mobsters such Greg Scarpa, Casso and Gotti and Carmine Persico were both earners and killers which made him ascend the ladder of their crime families along with a proven track record of being ruthless.