How Many Mafia Families Were There? 20,24,26???

[chin_gigante]

Interesting info. Though, keep in mind that it seems to relate to who was the most powerful boss at a given time.

I'm the early 2000s, Massino was considered the most powerful boss (the rest were in prison) but that didn't mean the Bonannos were the most powerful family.

If the claim is that Carlo Gambino waa the most powerful boss during the 1960s and into the 1970s, I would agree. But that's a different argument. And, during that period of 1980 to 1981, Castellano may have been the most powerful boss. But when Chin assumed control of the family, they were equals.

I'd agree with that assessment

[B.]

Did some digging through a few FBI files and my copy of Donnie Brasco and got these pieces of information regarding the Gambinos and Genoveses in the late 1960s through 1970s.

- At a meeting in February 1967, acting boss Paul Castellano indicated that Carlo Gambino at that point was ‘the most powerful “boss” in LCN’, citing disarray in the Bonanno family, Joe Colombo’s subservience to Gambino, the relationship between Gambino and Tommy Luchese and Luchese’s illness.

- Size of the families in the 1970s:

• Gambino:

1972 FBI report – 201 identified, 18 suspected
1977 FBI report – 196 identified

• Genovese:

1972 FBI report – 198 identified, 32 suspected
1977 FBI report – 199 identified[/list][/list]

- October 1973 report:

• ‘Sources advise that GAMBINO is engaged in all forms of criminal activity and exerts some influence in the other four New York LCN “Families.”’

- During the Colombo split of November 1976, the faction supporting Joe Yacovelli to become boss approached Frank Tieri and a Commission meeting was organised. Before approaching Tieri, Yacovelli had sought Tony Corallo’s advice. By December 1976, Tieri had spoken with ‘a Chicago member’ of the Commission and it was decided that the Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese families would decide the outcome of the Colombo dispute. Tieri felt Yacovelli had stepped out of line by bringing the dispute out of the Colombo family and that he was ‘wrong in this situation’. Tieri stated that the Commission would rule against whichever Colombo faction spilt first blood.

- January 1977 report:

• ‘Sources advised that whoever heads the Gambino family [Castellano or Dellacroce] will not have the power over the other families that CARLO GAMBINO had in the past.’

- Donnie Brasco:

• Regarding the Bonannos seeking to operate vending machines in Milwaukee, Pistone describes Tieri as the ‘reigning chief of the Commission’ in early 1979.

• Dominick Napolitano reported that Tieri was no longer the power on the Commission by late 1980.

‘The next time Sonny [Napolitano] came to Florida, he brought news of a shake-up in the Commission. “They knocked down Funzi Tieri,” he tells me. He said the power was now Paul Castellano, Neil Dellacroce, and Joe Gallo – the top guns of the Gambino family. “They were given the power and are handling it properly.”’

Excellent work.

The bolded part about the Colombo dispute is great, as it would explain why Chicago and Carmine Galante were part of resolving the issue as discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4862

We have Magaddino on tape saying that the boss is the true power of the organization. This has been echoed by other sources as well. I wouldn't suggest that the power/respect of the individual boss is the only factor to consider, but when it comes to mafia politics then I go with the people who know, which are the members of the organization. They stress the importance of the boss when it comes to the family's place in mafia politics which only makes sense as the boss is a politician at the end of the day.

A family's size and financial assets aren't a great mode of determining their true political "power" because it assumes that the family is cohesive and working together. Large families as we know are prone to factionalism that can break the family up into separate conflicting groups even if it never escalates into warfare. I don't think it's a coincidence that the report mentioning Castellano and Dellacroce not having the influence that Gambino had also coincides with the factionalism between them inside of the Gambino family. During the incarceration of Vito Genovese there was factionalism that hurt the Genovese family, too. Catena was regarded by some of the membership as evasive and various issues with Eboli are self-evident, leading up to his murder. So the Genovese went through a period of both factionalism and a decentralized boss position. It seems like they have actually used these qualities to their benefit in recent years but there were growing pains in the 1960s and into the early 70s.

The boss representing the power in the organization is backed up by what Eboli (the board member) said about the Genovese regaining stature after Tieri stepped up. The same could be said for the Bonannos under Massino. In both cases the organization didn't change -- the boss did.

[B.]

The Genovese family has managed to take advantage of being so compartmentalized, with the captains seeming to have more autonomy than the typical captain in other families, which could be a reason why we haven't seen any serious competition for the boss/admin positions post-1970s like we've seen in other families. Their decentralized nature seems to have hurt them earlier, with leading figures competing for influence, but we can see by the 1980s that they were using it to their advantage. Instead of Salerno and Gigante competing, they had an arrangement that didn't escape LE in the end but seems to have greatly stabilized the organization.

Compare that to their opposite in the Colombo family, the most geographically centralized family, where crews are constantly overlapping and there has almost always been a rigid chain of command through a group of relatives (the Profaci and Persico regimes are very similar in this way) whose heavy-handed leadership inevitably results in rebellion and warfare (again, this happened to both the Profaci and Persico regimes). Truly the opposite of the Genovese family and I don't think it's a coincidence that their organizations are in the shape they are in when you consider these differences.

[chin_gigante]

It would seem the Colombo dispute was settled in the same way as they attempted to settle the Bonanno issue in the 1960s by assembling 'mini-Commissions', where the bosses deciding weren't necessarily Commission members themselves as a throwback to the pre-1931 commissions that were assembled to settle disputes

[bert]

B. regarding this

"We have Magaddino on tape saying that the boss is the true power of the organization. This has been echoed by other sources as well. I wouldn't suggest that the power/respect of the individual boss is the only factor to consider, but when it comes to mafia politics then I go with the people who know, which are the members of the organization. They stress the importance of the boss when it comes to the family's place in mafia politics which only makes sense as the boss is a politician at the end of the day."


Magadino was speaking as a boss. I think in some cases like the Gambinos, even though Carlo was boss, Gallo and Delacroce, along with a few captains, had enough pull to have an influence on what he decided. Then there were the Genovese's who switched bosses around by using captains as acting bosses. I think when Gigante took hold he then nailed it down as to him being total boss.

[bert]

"During the Colombo split of November 1976, the faction supporting Joe Yacovelli to become boss approached Frank Tieri and a Commission meeting was organised. Before approaching Tieri, Yacovelli had sought Tony Corallo’s advice. By December 1976, Tieri had spoken with ‘a Chicago member’ of the Commission and it was decided that the Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese families would decide the outcome of the Colombo dispute. Tieri felt Yacovelli had stepped out of line by bringing the dispute out of the Colombo family and that he was ‘wrong in this situation’. Tieri stated that the Commission would rule against whichever Colombo faction spilt first blood."


The Genovese Family was often tied to the Columbo bosses after Yacovelli and Perscio were moved up, so Yacovelli's people going to the Genovese Family doesn't seem so out of bounds. Either Tieri did not like it, or the source had it wrong.

[B.]

The important thing to look at is how a family changes when their boss changes, how perception of the family changes. These are the same organizations consistently over time: they have membership caps which keep their sizes fixed, their members tend to be involved in the same types of activities, and the body of the organization is the same no matter who is in charge. What is the main variable in all of these reports about families gaining/losing influence in mafia politics? The boss.

[eboli]

I think when Gigante took hold he then nailed it down as to him being total boss.

Nicely put. From everything I've read on Chin he seems to have been an extremely ruthless individual, even for lcn standards. It's no surprise when you take into account the mentors he had.

[HairyKnuckles]

I remember reading way back when that Providence and Boston were originally 2 separate families. I don't remember where I read it or if it was even accurate.


Pogo

Pre 1920's during the days of the Black Hand Society, they were two different groups

Vincent Teresa claimed the two were two different LCN Families before they merged into one in the early 1950s.

[Grouchy Sinatra]

As the grand scale lucrative rackets like business, political, union corruption etc waned after the crackdowns of the late 20th century the vice rackets became king and I think the Genovese wisely held on to those through the years when other families abandoned them for bigger prizes.

[gohnjotti]

As the grand scale lucrative rackets like business, political, union corruption etc waned after the crackdowns of the late 20th century the vice rackets became king and I think the Genovese wisely held on to those through the years when other families abandoned them for bigger prizes.

What are you referring to in particular? Gambling, prostitution, etc.

[Wiseguy]

Did some digging through a few FBI files and my copy of Donnie Brasco and got these pieces of information regarding the Gambinos and Genoveses in the late 1960s through 1970s.

- At a meeting in February 1967, acting boss Paul Castellano indicated that Carlo Gambino at that point was ‘the most powerful “boss” in LCN’, citing disarray in the Bonanno family, Joe Colombo’s subservience to Gambino, the relationship between Gambino and Tommy Luchese and Luchese’s illness.

- Size of the families in the 1970s:

• Gambino:

1972 FBI report – 201 identified, 18 suspected
1977 FBI report – 196 identified

• Genovese:

1972 FBI report – 198 identified, 32 suspected
1977 FBI report – 199 identified[/list][/list]

- October 1973 report:

• ‘Sources advise that GAMBINO is engaged in all forms of criminal activity and exerts some influence in the other four New York LCN “Families.”’

- During the Colombo split of November 1976, the faction supporting Joe Yacovelli to become boss approached Frank Tieri and a Commission meeting was organised. Before approaching Tieri, Yacovelli had sought Tony Corallo’s advice. By December 1976, Tieri had spoken with ‘a Chicago member’ of the Commission and it was decided that the Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese families would decide the outcome of the Colombo dispute. Tieri felt Yacovelli had stepped out of line by bringing the dispute out of the Colombo family and that he was ‘wrong in this situation’. Tieri stated that the Commission would rule against whichever Colombo faction spilt first blood.

- January 1977 report:

• ‘Sources advised that whoever heads the Gambino family [Castellano or Dellacroce] will not have the power over the other families that CARLO GAMBINO had in the past.’

- Donnie Brasco:

• Regarding the Bonannos seeking to operate vending machines in Milwaukee, Pistone describes Tieri as the ‘reigning chief of the Commission’ in early 1979.

• Dominick Napolitano reported that Tieri was no longer the power on the Commission by late 1980.

‘The next time Sonny [Napolitano] came to Florida, he brought news of a shake-up in the Commission. “They knocked down Funzi Tieri,” he tells me. He said the power was now Paul Castellano, Neil Dellacroce, and Joe Gallo – the top guns of the Gambino family. “They were given the power and are handling it properly.”’

Excellent work.

The bolded part about the Colombo dispute is great, as it would explain why Chicago and Carmine Galante were part of resolving the issue as discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4862

We have Magaddino on tape saying that the boss is the true power of the organization. This has been echoed by other sources as well. I wouldn't suggest that the power/respect of the individual boss is the only factor to consider, but when it comes to mafia politics then I go with the people who know, which are the members of the organization. They stress the importance of the boss when it comes to the family's place in mafia politics which only makes sense as the boss is a politician at the end of the day.

A family's size and financial assets aren't a great mode of determining their true political "power" because it assumes that the family is cohesive and working together. Large families as we know are prone to factionalism that can break the family up into separate conflicting groups even if it never escalates into warfare. I don't think it's a coincidence that the report mentioning Castellano and Dellacroce not having the influence that Gambino had also coincides with the factionalism between them inside of the Gambino family. During the incarceration of Vito Genovese there was factionalism that hurt the Genovese family, too. Catena was regarded by some of the membership as evasive and various issues with Eboli are self-evident, leading up to his murder. So the Genovese went through a period of both factionalism and a decentralized boss position. It seems like they have actually used these qualities to their benefit in recent years but there were growing pains in the 1960s and into the early 70s.

The boss representing the power in the organization is backed up by what Eboli (the board member) said about the Genovese regaining stature after Tieri stepped up. The same could be said for the Bonannos under Massino. In both cases the organization didn't change -- the boss did.

Except what you're saying above hasn't always played out that way in the real world. As I pointed out before, in the early 2000's, Joe Massino was considered the most powerful boss (partly due to the other bosses being in prison) but the Bonannos weren't considered the most powerful family. In the 1970s, when Joe Colombo became boss, bosses like Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello had longer tenure and probably bigger individual standing. But their organizations were dwarfed by the Colombo family and who's really going to argue the Trafficante and Marcello families were more powerful?

Nicely put. From everything I've read on Chin he seems to have been an extremely ruthless individual, even for lcn standards. It's no surprise when you take into account the mentors he had.

"We don't break our capos. We kill them." - Chin

As the grand scale lucrative rackets like business, political, union corruption etc waned after the crackdowns of the late 20th century the vice rackets became king and I think the Genovese wisely held on to those through the years when other families abandoned them for bigger prizes.

While the Genovese did have the largest bookmaking and loansharking operations, their success relative to the other families was often attributed to their ongoing involvement in labor unions and legitimate industries.

The Genovese concern, long held by many mob watchers to be the wealthiest and most powerful of New York's five families, has maintained sophisticated construction and labor racketeering schemes as others dumbed down to drug dealing and street rackets.
- NY Daily News article (1996)

[Grouchy Sinatra]

As the grand scale lucrative rackets like business, political, union corruption etc waned after the crackdowns of the late 20th century the vice rackets became king and I think the Genovese wisely held on to those through the years when other families abandoned them for bigger prizes.

What are you referring to in particular? Gambling, prostitution, etc.

Yes.

The Genovese kept it simple. Control the things that will never go away.

Other families got involved with grand racket schemes involving unions, government, etc. The problem with those is that when the dominoes fall everyone falls with them. That's what happened to Chicago.

[Wiseguy]

As the grand scale lucrative rackets like business, political, union corruption etc waned after the crackdowns of the late 20th century the vice rackets became king and I think the Genovese wisely held on to those through the years when other families abandoned them for bigger prizes.

What are you referring to in particular? Gambling, prostitution, etc.

Yes.

The Genovese kept it simple. Control the things that will never go away.

Other families got involved with grand racket schemes involving unions, government, etc. The problem with those is that when the dominoes fall everyone falls with them. That's what happened to Chicago.

No idea what you're talking about. Your evaluation is incorrect and almost backwards. Have you gotten anything right since you joined this forum?

[Grouchy Sinatra]

The Genovese mostly got out of wide scale government corruption after Costello. They still have a lot of union control but nothing like what they had in Uncle Frank's day. They pivoted to vice rackets in the 60s. Families like Chicago, Luccheses and Gambinos had too much tied in unions and government and when their front men started going down the rackets dried up.

The Genovese are what they are today because they control vice and small government/union rackets. They don't have government and organized labor writ large in their pocket anymore. The Tammany Hall days are over. lol.

But Wiseguy wants to believe the Genovese appoints presidents and controls the nuclear silos.