Changes in leadership when a new boss takes over

[B.]

I think it's pretty well accepted that a boss can appoint a new underboss as he sees fit, though sometimes will keep the same one on for political reasons (i.e. Dellacroce). Often the underboss becomes the new boss, too, so promoting a new one is a given. Nothing too complicated about this.

Traditionally, the consigliere has to be elected by the membership of a family and in theory this is done independently of the boss's wishes (though I have to believe many bosses greatly "influenced" these elections -- or in the case of Stefano Magaddino, didn't even allow a consigliere in the family). By the 1980s in NYC it seems, consigliere had changed into more of a defacto "number three" role and we start to hear of bosses promoting people to the spot rather than being elected by the entire family (Gotti and Amuso chose their consiglieres I believe). In the late 1970s, Philly members were recorded talking about how Bruno wasn't honoring the traditional method of electing a consigliere and we know Scarfo simply chose his uncle for the spot.

When a boss takes over, we know that they have the power to promote or demote captains as they see fit, but there is another aspect of this I've heard about. I would need to dig to find out exactly where I had read it, but I know at least one informant claimed that when a new boss takes over, all of the captains are automatically demoted and the boss has the right to either reappoint them or promote new captains. Sam DeCavalcante was recorded saying that when he took over the family had no captains, which I interpreted to mean the family had been operating without any captains under Nick DelMore, but we know they did have captains at some point pre-1960s given that Frank DeCavalcante was a captain before he died. Well, I saw a report where the FBI mentioned Sam's comment about "no captains" to an informant, and the informant said that what Sam was probably referring to was the fact that all of the captains lost their titles when he took over. I am trying to remember the other place(s) I read about this, but I want to say Scarpa mentioned it when Joe Colombo took over. I could be wrong on that, but I know I've read it more than once.

In New York, with the factions pretty well-defined, it would have been politically dangerous to demote a lot of longstanding captains from their positions, so I assume that's why we haven't heard much of it there. In small incestuous families centered in more limited territory like the Colombos and DeCavalcantes, it makes more sense that they could change things up without much of a problem. We have seen those families move members around and change middle management more than other families over the years, same with the Bonannos to some degree. Even though he wasn't official boss, this happened after Galante died. I would be curious if there is any truth to this about all of the captains losing their titles (even if it's just a formality) and needing to be officially reappointed by the new boss. I am thinking it was done in the early days and gradually forgotten about like a number of other rules.

This could be very time consuming, but I would also be curious to match up the general dates that underbosses and captains were promoted and compare that to the dates when bosses took over.

[phatmatress777]

Good stuff b


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Angelo Santino]

Yeah, good stuff. I've thought about this as well and have fallen short. I've come to just simply conclude that it depends on who holds what at what time? Dellacroce would be in a better position to keep his spot as apposed to Frank Martinez. And if a New Chicago boss was elected while Ricca was allegedly consigliere could you see Ricca caving into the new boss a-la-Joe N Gallo with: "Ok so I break all the captains and renominate them and then you're no longer consigliere?" This topic kinda delves into if so and so was boss or create-your-own-mob family. There are so many different concoctions that we can make with this.

I'll say this: alot of time in Mob history you see underbosses getting killed and dying before the bosses themselves. It's a strange trend.

But as far as changes in leadership overall, I'd say it has more to do with generations. For instance the 1900's bosses were well off by their standards, community leaders but not necessary rich. The next gen that were into bootlegging were a different bread: rich and relatively young with the median age being around 30. This particular generation that came up during bootlegging and became the face after it, enjoyed long tenures on average of 30 years, as did the captains under them. Whereas you cut to today, there's about a 2-5 year turnaround. There's many reasons for this but nothing I can pet on the organization itself. If that makes any sense.

[Snakes]

Chicago was unique in that their consiglieres were basically retired bosses who essentially had more clout than the bosses themselves.

A lot has been made about the post-Giancana era cleansing but I think it's been played up to more than it actually was. Aiuppa did place a lot of his guys in the top positions but this was due more to death and imprisonment - natural attrition - than any type of changing of the guard or mass demoting.

[Pogo The Clown]

given that Frank DeCavalcante was a captain before he died.

Do you know when he died? Thanks.


Pogo

[Sol]

I think it's pretty well accepted that a boss can appoint a new underboss as he sees fit, though sometimes will keep the same one on for political reasons (i.e. Dellacroce). Often the underboss becomes the new boss, too, so promoting a new one is a given. Nothing too complicated about this.

Traditionally, the consigliere has to be elected by the membership of a family and in theory this is done independently of the boss's wishes (though I have to believe many bosses greatly "influenced" these elections -- or in the case of Stefano Magaddino, didn't even allow a consigliere in the family). By the 1980s in NYC it seems, consigliere had changed into more of a defacto "number three" role and we start to hear of bosses promoting people to the spot rather than being elected by the entire family (Gotti and Amuso chose their consiglieres I believe). In the late 1970s, Philly members were recorded talking about how Bruno wasn't honoring the traditional method of electing a consigliere and we know Scarfo simply chose his uncle for the spot.

When a boss takes over, we know that they have the power to promote or demote captains as they see fit, but there is another aspect of this I've heard about. I would need to dig to find out exactly where I had read it, but I know at least one informant claimed that when a new boss takes over, all of the captains are automatically demoted and the boss has the right to either reappoint them or promote new captains. Sam DeCavalcante was recorded saying that when he took over the family had no captains, which I interpreted to mean the family had been operating without any captains under Nick DelMore, but we know they did have captains at some point pre-1960s given that Frank DeCavalcante was a captain before he died. Well, I saw a report where the FBI mentioned Sam's comment about "no captains" to an informant, and the informant said that what Sam was probably referring to was the fact that all of the captains lost their titles when he took over. I am trying to remember the other place(s) I read about this, but I want to say Scarpa mentioned it when Joe Colombo took over. I could be wrong on that, but I know I've read it more than once.

In New York, with the factions pretty well-defined, it would have been politically dangerous to demote a lot of longstanding captains from their positions, so I assume that's why we haven't heard much of it there. In small incestuous families centered in more limited territory like the Colombos and DeCavalcantes, it makes more sense that they could change things up without much of a problem. We have seen those families move members around and change middle management more than other families over the years, same with the Bonannos to some degree. Even though he wasn't official boss, this happened after Galante died. I would be curious if there is any truth to this about all of the captains losing their titles (even if it's just a formality) and needing to be officially reappointed by the new boss. I am thinking it was done in the early days and gradually forgotten about like a number of other rules.

This could be very time consuming, but I would also be curious to match up the general dates that underbosses and captains were promoted and compare that to the dates when bosses took over.

Again another awesome post B., just blows my mind that the powers that be at the RD would ever banned posters like youself, Chris, Pogo, Wiseguy, FOH, Cheech, and all the rest of the awesome posters here that got the boot over there. It's truly beyond me. Anyways, great post.......Soliai

[Antiliar]

I'm not sure that's true that when a new boss takes over that the captains lose their rank and have to be reappointed. I think the general rule is, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." So unless there was a reason to demote someone, they would stay at the rank they had before. Now a boss was within his rights to demote if he wanted to, but it seems to me that if people were automatically demoted it would hurt morale, and since a *borgata* depends on trust, why do something this severe if there's no need for it?

As for Chicago, Snakes is correct that it doesn't follow the normal organizational rules. The consigliere has a higher status than the boss, and as far as I know, the title isn't actually used. When Ricca, Accardo and Giancana were alive and active, each one was called "boss," but "Mooney" was recognized as the guy who ran the organization on a day-to-day basis like a company president (and represented Chicago for Commission meetings), "Joe Batters" was also a boss but his role was like a vice chairman, and "Paul" was called "THE boss" and his role was like a chairman. Even the caporegimes were at times called "bosses" but were only territorial bosses, and each one had a top lieutenant or "underboss" or "number 2." There was also an overall Outfit underboss, and the day-to-day boss picked him. When Giancana was boss it was Frank Ferraro, then when he died it was Sam Battaglia. Not sure who Battaglia's underboss was when he was the Outfit boss, it could have been Milwaukee Phil or Joe Amabile or Jack Cerone. When Joe Aiuppa was the boss, Cerone was his underboss.

[phatmatress777]

I think it's pretty well accepted that a boss can appoint a new underboss as he sees fit, though sometimes will keep the same one on for political reasons (i.e. Dellacroce). Often the underboss becomes the new boss, too, so promoting a new one is a given. Nothing too complicated about this.

Traditionally, the consigliere has to be elected by the membership of a family and in theory this is done independently of the boss's wishes (though I have to believe many bosses greatly "influenced" these elections -- or in the case of Stefano Magaddino, didn't even allow a consigliere in the family). By the 1980s in NYC it seems, consigliere had changed into more of a defacto "number three" role and we start to hear of bosses promoting people to the spot rather than being elected by the entire family (Gotti and Amuso chose their consiglieres I believe). In the late 1970s, Philly members were recorded talking about how Bruno wasn't honoring the traditional method of electing a consigliere and we know Scarfo simply chose his uncle for the spot.

When a boss takes over, we know that they have the power to promote or demote captains as they see fit, but there is another aspect of this I've heard about. I would need to dig to find out exactly where I had read it, but I know at least one informant claimed that when a new boss takes over, all of the captains are automatically demoted and the boss has the right to either reappoint them or promote new captains. Sam DeCavalcante was recorded saying that when he took over the family had no captains, which I interpreted to mean the family had been operating without any captains under Nick DelMore, but we know they did have captains at some point pre-1960s given that Frank DeCavalcante was a captain before he died. Well, I saw a report where the FBI mentioned Sam's comment about "no captains" to an informant, and the informant said that what Sam was probably referring to was the fact that all of the captains lost their titles when he took over. I am trying to remember the other place(s) I read about this, but I want to say Scarpa mentioned it when Joe Colombo took over. I could be wrong on that, but I know I've read it more than once.

In New York, with the factions pretty well-defined, it would have been politically dangerous to demote a lot of longstanding captains from their positions, so I assume that's why we haven't heard much of it there. In small incestuous families centered in more limited territory like the Colombos and DeCavalcantes, it makes more sense that they could change things up without much of a problem. We have seen those families move members around and change middle management more than other families over the years, same with the Bonannos to some degree. Even though he wasn't official boss, this happened after Galante died. I would be curious if there is any truth to this about all of the captains losing their titles (even if it's just a formality) and needing to be officially reappointed by the new boss. I am thinking it was done in the early days and gradually forgotten about like a number of other rules.

This could be very time consuming, but I would also be curious to match up the general dates that underbosses and captains were promoted and compare that to the dates when bosses took over.

Again another awesome post B., just blows my mind that the powers that be at the RD would ever banned posters like youself, Chris, Pogo, Wiseguy, FOH, Cheech, and all the rest of the awesome posters here that got the boot over there. It's truly beyond me. Anyways, great post.......Soliai

I wonder why the y never booted me or chucky? Maybe they think we are idiots and let us stay there lol it's not easy to see that I'm much nore involved in this forum then I am at real deal

[Ivan]

Again another awesome post B., just blows my mind that the powers that be at the RD would ever banned posters like youself, Chris, Pogo, Wiseguy, FOH, Cheech, and all the rest of the awesome posters here that got the boot over there. It's truly beyond me. Anyways, great post.......Soliai

I wonder why the y never booted me or chucky? Maybe they think we are idiots and let us stay there lol it's not easy to see that I'm much nore involved in this forum then I am at real deal

I haven't been whacked yet either. They'd really have to stretch to come up with a reason to ban someone as harmless, peaceful, and inoffensive as me though.

[Antiliar]

Again another awesome post B., just blows my mind that the powers that be at the RD would ever banned posters like youself, Chris, Pogo, Wiseguy, FOH, Cheech, and all the rest of the awesome posters here that got the boot over there. It's truly beyond me. Anyways, great post.......Soliai

I wonder why the y never booted me or chucky? Maybe they think we are idiots and let us stay there lol it's not easy to see that I'm much nore involved in this forum then I am at real deal

I haven't been whacked yet either. They'd really have to stretch to come up with a reason to ban someone as harmless, peaceful, and inoffensive as me though.

I haven't been whacked either. I'm generally pretty inoffensive...until they get me really riled up! LOL

[phatmatress777]

I'm not as laid back as you fellas lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B.]

Again another awesome post B., just blows my mind that the powers that be at the RD would ever banned posters like youself, Chris, Pogo, Wiseguy, FOH, Cheech, and all the rest of the awesome posters here that got the boot over there. It's truly beyond me. Anyways, great post.......Soliai

Thanks, man. I'm thankful that this place exists... I'd probably ruin my girlfriend's life trying to tell her about this shit if I didn't have an outlet.

As for being banned, keep in mind that I had slowly stopped posting over there and hadn't posted for many months when they banned me (I think it was the same for Christie). Tommy and David had known for a long time that I had posted grievances about that board over here years before I was banned, so you have to figure I was banned out of pettiness and damaged egos... "Oh, so he's not going to post here anymore? He's banned!"

I'm not sure that's true that when a new boss takes over that the captains lose their rank and have to be reappointed. I think the general rule is, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." So unless there was a reason to demote someone, they would stay at the rank they had before. Now a boss was within his rights to demote if he wanted to, but it seems to me that if people were automatically demoted it would hurt morale, and since a *borgata* depends on trust, why do something this severe if there's no need for it?

I wish I could remember the exact places I read this. If it really was a rule, it was probably a very loose formality. Not so much that captains were truly demoted, but that the boss may have met / sent word to captains letting them know he wanted them to continue on as captain. Scarfo held some meetings like this when he took over, and he of course changed up some of the captains as well, not that Philly is a good example of anything.

Pogo -- I believe Frank DeCavalcante (he spelled it DiCavalcante/DiCavalcanti, and his actual last name was Rizzo) died in the 1950s. I thought I had the year but I'm not finding it right now. A couple of NJ Genovese soldiers were recorded on the DeCarlo tapes talking about visiting him in the hospital when he was sick and that he was a capodecina. Wouldn't seem out of the ballpark for Sam to have taken over that crew before he became underboss.

[Antiliar]

Name: Frank P Dicavalcante
SSN: 154120627
Birth Date: 6 Oct 1889
Death Date: 12 Aug 1954
Claim Date: 8 Sep 1954

[HairyKnuckles]

it was probably a very loose formality.

Yes, I believe so too. But I don´t think it was the norm or by any means a standard move by the new boss.

In Scarpa files, I seem to remember reading that the Colombos only had a few captains at one point. I think it was while Magliocco was boss, but I could be wrong (possibly it was when Joe Colombo was about to take over and he was reshaping the Family). But I can understand why new bosses makes this move. He wants captains who are loyal to him. Promoting somebody will put him in a debt of gratitude. The gratitude will be even greater if that same individual was demoted previously.

[Pogo The Clown]

Thanks for the info on Fran DeCavalcante. Any idea who some of the other early DeCavalcante Capos were?


Pogo