Gambino Family Succession Highlights

[Angelo Santino]

The Riccobono crew was heavily Sicilian but in addition to the Serravavallo/Capaci roots, it had multiple Bisacquinese members, Marineo, Agrigento, etc. So it wasn't just a Palermitan crew. They were based in Lower Manhattan but later some of the younger Riccobonos ran a decina in Brooklyn, though they descended from Simone Riccobono who was also a Mangano-era captain of what may have been a separate crew from Joe Riccobono even though they were related. And even though Frank Scalise descended from the same clan, his crew was separate and based primarily in the Bronx. So much like the Gambino-Castellanos having multiple decine early on as well as later, the same is true for the Virzi-Scalise-Riccobono clan.

There was the source you guys discussed in the article who indicated Pietro Inzarillo (spelling different from Inzerillo, though interesting that name recurs) reported to Virzi, so it's a good bet Virzi was an early capodecina. It's a question though of whether these younger leaders from that clan all have roots under him or what.

I often wondered what he meant by liberal and conservative because that really rests on the perceiver.

Joe Bonanno lays it out explicitly on page 161 of my paperback edition. The "conservative" faction was "tradition-bound" and shared a "philosophy" that reflected their "Sicilian roots"... he says the conservative faction was the "Sicilian wing" and they opposed narcotics and prostitution, whereas the "liberal" faction was the "American" wing who reflected "trends" developing in America. Luciano, he says, was born in Sicily but was the product of "American ideas". Bonanno says the Americanized/liberal leaders didn't always agree or side together but represented the same tendencies.

At another point, Bonanno says "Americanized" included the inclusion of mainlanders and mainland influences -- he didn't simply mean "Americanized" in a mainstream American sense, but anything that strayed from the Sicilian tradition even within a world of Italian immigrants. Magaddino also made this same distinction, on one tape discussing how the Chicago Family once had the "greaseballs" who were represented by boss Toto LoVerde and the "Americanized" represented by Paul Ricca.

Gentile never confirmed if sostituti were the same as being on the consiglio. If it was then he was on the Gambino consiglio like we'd have to chart him on it like the charts in Detroit and Tampa.

Sostituito seems to have changed or evolved or used in different contexts. In the Sangiorgi its reported as the second position in the Family, in Gentile he states that "In D'Aquila's absence, Train was substitute." I think there's examples in Allegra but I dont recall them offhand. And then we have in Mangano's case examples of members being selected to lighten the load of the boss administratively.

So did Philly consider or refer to Traina as sostituto?

I wasn't meaning to imply sostituti = members of the consiglio, only that Gentile was a soldier and sostituto and for some reason he and Chiri were part of a five-man meeting with the official admin to discuss Gentile's fate and it's not clear why these five men met to make the decision together. The meeting concerned Gentile so his attendance could have been based on that, but he was a soldier authorized to represent Mangano over the Agrigentini and Chiri was either a soldier or capodecina but included in this process for reasons unknown even though they could just as well have brought any number of other capidecine to the meeting. It brings to mind the consiglio, which was typically a five-man body that included the admin, a specific capodecina and often a senior soldier.

However now that we're talking about this, I believe consiglio members would be prime candidates to serve as sostituti and there are examples of that even beyond the official consigliere being the acting boss in Bill B and Allegra's accounts. For one, when the Chicago Family was having admin trouble, consiglio members Paul Ricca and Tony Accardo stepped up as acting bosses and in San Jose it was reported that consiglio members Zoccoli and Morici served as the acting bosses in the absence of Joe Cerrito.

I don't think sostituti evolved or changed, only that it was somewhat flexibile in that a sostituto = someone who is authorized to act in the boss's absence. We know it could be "the" acting boss but it could also be someone like Gentile who was authorized to act for the boss within a specific set of parameters (over the Agrigentino crews).

What Allegra said was the consigliere was also the boss's sostituto, which adds to Bill Bonanno's claim that the consigliere was traditionally the acting boss when needed. Since making that connection, we can see a number of examples where that happened even though there are other instances where the underboss or a capodecina serves as acting boss.

There are no examples of Traina being called a "sostituto" with Philly, though his role was very much that. Traina was at that point a capodecina who previously served as consigliere and D'Aquila's sostituto in national matters, but for decades Philly would contact him about issues within their Family and Traina looks to have been designated to act on behalf of whoever the Gambino boss was in matters that concerned Philadelphia. He carried this role under Mangano, Anastasia, and Carlo Gambino so it was clearly a well-established role regardless of who his boss was at any given time and no doubt reflects not just his close relationship with Philly via compaesani but also his experience with these duties going back to the D'Aquila era when Gentile explicitly called him the sostituto.

In the 1910s the Virzis still seemed pretty homogenous but they were mingling with others so it doesn't surprise me that the crew evolved to include others.

We agree on sostituto. I guess we should ask how formal are these functions? Did Mangano call Trupia and Parlapiano to a sitdown and introduce Cola Gentile as the new sostituto they are to see if they have any issues? Certainly Gentile couldn't just leave Mangano and go up to both men and say 'Mangano entrusted me to hear grievances.' Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there, Gentile was describing the past situation and role he saw himself in. Perhaps if we could ask Mangano he might have just said Gentile's a soldier under Trupia. He gets alot of things right but he does have a tendancy of hyping himself up.

[B.]

Gentile is pretty good in my opinion at making the distinction between formal vs. casual. Many times he talks about people consulting him simply because he was the great Don Culicchia, but with the sostituto arrangement he describes first being given these duties by Mangano, describes why he was given them, and details a specific dispute where this process was followed and what the next step would be if he couldn't settle it himself. Gentile's other uses of sostituto, when he acted for Conti in Pittsburgh and when Traina acted for D'Aquila at an Assemblea, are similarly formal.

The Capo Vincenzo Mangano had nominated me to be his Sostituto with the authority to settle any differences there might be among the components of the two Decine, that operated in New York, since his residence was in Brooklyn. In fact, one Decina was ran by Joe Pidduzzu while the other by Geatano Tropia., a native of Agrigento, a resident on 39th Street on the East Side. Practically all the components of the two Decine were from the province of Agrigento, so Mangano considered them my paesani.

Mangano "nominated" Gentile to be his sostituto over the two Agrigentino decine both because Mangano was focused in Brooklyn and because he felt it best that a provincial paesan handle issues among the Agrigentini.

I tried to do my best with the power entrusted to me, not omitting to keep the Capo informed from time to time about the deportment of the Decine. I spoke to him about the Parlapiano-Marciano case, and Mangano said to me:

“They are the types that fight often, but in the end they are always united, therefore conduct yourself with them as you best believe to be opportune, because I have many problems to fix and as a consequence, don’t have time to lose.”

Part of Gentile's role was to update Mangano on the affairs of the Agrigentini and consult with him when a specific issue comes to a head. After Gentile was given this role and reported the Marciano-Parlapiano issue to Mangano, Mangano responded that the Agrigentini often had internal problems but were nonetheless a united block and that he didn't have time to handle their problems himself, again empasizing Gentile's authority to handle their problems as he saw fit.

I perceived that Luigi Marciano was greatly degraded through the behavior adhered to him, by that imbecile Riuzzu. Once, even I was vexed, rebuking him, I began reproaching him for the uncivil behavior that he adhered to me in front of his good friend Luigi: making note however, that he lacked respect even for me, because the common folk were amazed that I had been unable to reconcile them, also that Marciano was a man of action and was considered to be one of the best. I also added that if he did not change his conduct, I would be compelled to report it to the Consiglio of the Onorata Società that would be able to arbitrate between the two about who was right and who was wrong.

This was a dispute between soldato Luigi Marciano and his capodecina Giuseppe "Riuzzu" Parlapiano. Gentile disliked Parlapiano's conduct and attitude, warning him that if he didn't get in line Gentile would have to report it to the consiglio. Gentile is likely referring to the wider NYC consiglio described by Valachi. Valachi used the word "consiglio" in his testimony and described this as a body made up of the consigliere of each NYC Family plus NJ and said a rotating 7th member of the council was used as the tiebreaker, this rotating seat being held by a different NYC boss. This NYC-NJ consiglio (which was distinct from the Commission) was in place to give members a fair trial and members could not be killed without the approval of the council. An FBI source (I don't think it was Valachi) also mentioned this body and said Joe Biondo and Vincent Rao (both consiglieri) sat on it at one point and Michele Clemente also seems to reference it at one point, saying there was previously a body like this he called "the three geeps".

So Gentile is designated to act for Mangano in affairs of the Agrigentini but there is a formal process where if Gentile can't settle the dispute he must report it to the consiglio for further arbitration. In this case, he is threatening to report a capodecina to the consiglio.

“You notice well,” I continued with more of a brisk tone than an annoyed one, “that I have followed you’re behavior for more than two months and can say up to now, that the fault is on your part. Which we will not tolerate any longer, because otherwise it will end quite bad.”
Riuzzu had never heard me speak so severely. His haughtiness vanished and he assumed a humble demeanor (similar to that of a sheep).
“But Zio Cola, ” he responded, “Why didn’t you rebuke me earlier, being that I was wrong?”

And I replied to him:
“I hesitated in order not to embarrass you, because I believed that your good sense would have suggested finally, some fine day, for you to put en end to your anger.” Because it had reached the proper moment to silence their bitterness, I requested him to make friends with Luigi, and from that time on, the first person who was the first to be greeted, was obliged to return the greeting, should it be that of a good friend.
I then made Marciano come, who, emotionally moved, reciprocated the embrace of his good friend Pidduzzu. Everyone was happy for this pacification, they congratulated me for having promoted it, acquiring with this, prestige and respect.

Gentile settles the dispute and everyone is happy, with Parlapiano and Marciano expected to treat each other as friends again.

Beyond Gentile's usual grandiosity, it seems clear to me this was a formal role and he wasn't just butting in and lording himself over a capodecina, but that Parlapiano understood Gentile's role and the authority it represented. There is a clear process in place where Gentile reports these issues to Mangano (who felt like an outsider and didn't want to get involved) and/or the consiglio.

While he doesn't say that Parlapiano and Trupia were sat down and told Gentile held this role, it seems obvious that it was communicated to them and Parlapiano understood and respected it. If it was simply a de facto arrangement and Gentile wanted to communicate the great respect he was given, knowing his narrative I think he just would have said "I was consulted about the Parlapiano-Marciano dispute because these men knew the great wisdom and patience of Don Cola." Instead he breaks it down in detail and gives an example that highlights the formal process.

[Angelo Santino]

B. Good proints on Gentile and I fully agree.

--

One thing I think may be an issue is referring these groups by their 1900's terms, mentioning an event in 1913 and the Palermitani, Corleonese and Castellammarese Family might escape the listener that I'm speaking to the Gambino, Genovese-Lucchese and Bonanno Family. But then if I say D'Aquila was boss of the Gambino family there'll be someone who'll come along politely inform me that they weren't called the Gambinos yet when D'Aquila was boss.

One argument going for is that these 5 groups have been coined their names since the 60s and will die under those names so in discussing them in their infancy, might make sense to refer to them under same those names for clarity.

[B.]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

[quadtree]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

The Bonanno family is an easy example. But what to do with the Morello family? Should it still be called the Lucchese family before 1912? Or should we call it the Genovese family?

It makes sense to call Palermitani Gambino, since Colombo is a smaller fragment of Palermitani. But what about the Morello family? Both Lucchese and Genovese have the right to succession with this family, what should it be called? Lucchese retained more continuity from D'Aquila's point of view, and Morello, Masseria and Terranova were outcasts like Joe Bonanno after the Banana War, but then the Masseria family was recognized by the commission and the people they recruited were recognized as men of honor. I believe both Lucchese and Genovese have equal right of succession to the Morello family, so it makes sense to call the Morello family the Morello family rather than Genovese or Lucchese. It's my personal opinion.

[Angelo Santino]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards using the unofficial names in reference to these groups. I could state what I'm doing in the beginning.

Corleonese I'd go with Genovese-Lucchese, as that'd be the most accurate. But let's say I were to do a similar project for these groups, I'd lump the hardcore 1900-1920's formal boss succession in with the Luccheses since that's the official sanctioned lineage. With the Gens I'd explain Morello and the Terranova's former status in the 1900's and their current status in the 1920's and go from there. It's funny because you and I started out on opposite sides of this who the true successors were.

[Angelo Santino]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

The Bonanno family is an easy example. But what to do with the Morello family? Should it still be called the Lucchese family before 1912? Or should we call it the Genovese family?

It makes sense to call Palermitani Gambino, since Colombo is a smaller fragment of Palermitani. But what about the Morello family? Both Lucchese and Genovese have the right to succession with this family, what should it be called? Lucchese retained more continuity from D'Aquila's point of view, and Morello, Masseria and Terranova were outcasts like Joe Bonanno after the Banana War, but then the Masseria family was recognized by the commission and the people they recruited were recognized as men of honor. I believe both Lucchese and Genovese have equal right of succession to the Morello family, so it makes sense to call the Morello family the Morello family rather than Genovese or Lucchese. It's my personal opinion.

I agree both the G and L can claim lineage from the Corleonese. But given the faction we call the Lucchese did things the "right" way in terms of falling in life under the BOB whereas the faction we call the "Genoveses" began as a rebel faction that should have been murdered, I'd say the Luccheses are the more deserving. The Gens gained a genetic makeup that was very different than the original Corleonesi of the 00s and 10s while the Luccheses on the other hand continued to have factions that were once in the Corleonesi including the Marinesi and Villafratesi. But that's just my own opinion. Someone could argue Morello's presence in both the Cor and Gens as well as the 'territory' they inherited from Cor which included E Harlem and Little Italy.

[quadtree]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

The Bonanno family is an easy example. But what to do with the Morello family? Should it still be called the Lucchese family before 1912? Or should we call it the Genovese family?

It makes sense to call Palermitani Gambino, since Colombo is a smaller fragment of Palermitani. But what about the Morello family? Both Lucchese and Genovese have the right to succession with this family, what should it be called? Lucchese retained more continuity from D'Aquila's point of view, and Morello, Masseria and Terranova were outcasts like Joe Bonanno after the Banana War, but then the Masseria family was recognized by the commission and the people they recruited were recognized as men of honor. I believe both Lucchese and Genovese have equal right of succession to the Morello family, so it makes sense to call the Morello family the Morello family rather than Genovese or Lucchese. It's my personal opinion.

I agree both the G and L can claim lineage from the Corleonese. But given the faction we call the Lucchese did things the "right" way in terms of falling in life under the BOB whereas the faction we call the "Genoveses" began as a rebel faction that should have been murdered, I'd say the Luccheses are the more deserving. The Gens gained a genetic makeup that was very different than the original Corleonesi of the 00s and 10s while the Luccheses on the other hand continued to have factions that were once in the Corleonesi including the Marinesi and Villafratesi. But that's just my own opinion. Someone could argue Morello's presence in both the Cor and Gens as well as the 'territory' they inherited from Cor which included E Harlem and Little Italy.

Yes, the Genovese family was originally a rebel group, but Maranzano was also a rebel group, nevertheless, then he, like Masseria, “legalized” and became the official boss. This does not prevent the Maranzano family from being considered the direct successor of the Schiro family.

I see the situation with the origins of the Genovese family like this. The official boss of the Morello family was Salvatore Loiacano, but he was killed and the Morello family was officially disbanded. All its members were in limbo. Whoever the boss of Reina's group was, he could not be recognized as the official boss while the conflict continued. Morello applied for the position of boss but was put aside and sentenced to death, but by 1923 the war was over and both bosses, Gaetano Reina and Giuseppe Masseria, were recognized as bosses of their own families. Both groups come from the Morello family, but it can hardly be said that the family that Reina led is 100% a family from the Loiacano era, the same is true about the Masseria family. Both families differ in composition from the Morello family, and both laid claim to the inheritance of the Morello family, in the end a compromise decision was made to consider both families legitimate. That's what D'Aquila decided. It is unlikely that he said in his decision that Masseria is less legitimate than Reina.

Recent discussions on the forum, in which I took part, showed that the Genovese family had and remains a previously underestimated layer of members from East Palermo. These are people from Marineo, Bauchina, Corleone, Lercara Friddi, Cerda and Colledzano, Polizzi Generosa, Petralia Sottana, San Cataldo and so on. Key members of a number of Genovese crews are associated with East Palermo origins, indicating that this is the same element that the family inherited from the Morello family.

Not just Ciro Terranova's East Harlem crew or Salvatore Lucania's Little Italy crew, but probably the New Jersey crew comes from the Morello family. At least this is the impression given by the presence of old-timers with East Palermo heritage in this crew. Genovese also had crews on the Lower East Side, and there were a lot of people there, too, of East Palermo origin.

At the same time, the Lucchese family has quite a few Neapolitan and other continental members. Gagliano and Lucchese actively recruited non-Sicilians during the 1930-1931 war, exemplified by Valachi. The composition of the Gagliano family was already significantly different from the original Morello family. Who knows, maybe the same recruitment was carried out by Reina in 1920-1923?

And given that Neapolitans and Calabrians could join the family back in the days of Loiacano (for example, Fred Toriello or Guarino Moretti), I’m not sure that all this crowd of people from the mainland in Genovese are necessarily newcomers to the Masseria era. All these facts cast doubt on the version that the Genovese family was originally a small fragment of the Loiacano family, which recruited a huge number of non-Sicilians.

[johnny_scootch]

The official boss of the Morello family was Salvatore Loiacano, but he was killed and the Morello family was officially disbanded.

This is legit? Where did this info come from? Gentile? Clemente? I can’t recall it.

[B.]

Some things to keep in mind.

- When a boss dies, the underboss and capidecine lose their official ranks and the Family is officially broken. There are examples of consigliere losing his position but not always as it is an elected position and the consigliere is supposed to organize the election of a new boss. We know from the Gallo war a new boss can't be recognized if there is conflict in a Family and though guys can vote for different people, they have to agree unanimously on the majority candidate in the end. When the new boss is elected, the borgata is "formed" again and the circle is again tied. It is the same Family but on a formal level the Family is officially considered broken until then. Magaddino and Gentile alluded to this and Sicilian pentiti broke it down in detail.

- If there is disagreement in a Family, an official boss can be taken down and made acting, having to run everything by the Commission (or maybe the national capo / gran consiglio earlier) for a probationary period. This happened to John LaRocca where he lost his title, was made acting until the problems were settled, then he was recognized again. It can also happen like the DeCavalcantes where Amari was taken down and Delmore was made acting for a year then made official, similar to Gambino's three year probation period before being officially confirmed. These three examples are all from around the 1950s so I presume it happened numerous times further back.

I'm of the belief that these processes go back much further so it is something to keep in mind with regard to these Family splits, internal conflicts, bosses dying or stepping down, etc. in formal terms it isn't as simple as one boss taking over for the previous one or the Family continuing on smoothly without interruption.

When Magaddino discussed Anastasia's murder he sure gave the impression that a split was a very real possibility though they got things under control through Gambino. Would have been interesting if a split did happen that late in the game given things were so fixed during the post-1931 era.

[B.]

One thing that's not completely clear to me... captains might keep their title when the boss dies or steps down as their crew still reports to them and in the absence of a Family-wide assembly/turna, they meet with their soldiers to collect votes then attend a captains meeting to cast the votes (in Sicily they used actual ballot boxes according to Marino Mannoia). When the boss is elected he can then reappoint them or replace them.

Magaddino insisted during the Bonanno war that the captains no longer had their titles after JB was taken down though we know from the DeCavalcante tapes that crews were more or less intact. When he told Paul Sciacca and "Loffa" about how the election process works, he said when they elect a new boss it would "form" the borgata.

Much of this is a formality and the Family still functions as it would for the most part but this is the process they traditionally follow both in Sicily and the US.

[Angelo Santino]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

The Bonanno family is an easy example. But what to do with the Morello family? Should it still be called the Lucchese family before 1912? Or should we call it the Genovese family?

It makes sense to call Palermitani Gambino, since Colombo is a smaller fragment of Palermitani. But what about the Morello family? Both Lucchese and Genovese have the right to succession with this family, what should it be called? Lucchese retained more continuity from D'Aquila's point of view, and Morello, Masseria and Terranova were outcasts like Joe Bonanno after the Banana War, but then the Masseria family was recognized by the commission and the people they recruited were recognized as men of honor. I believe both Lucchese and Genovese have equal right of succession to the Morello family, so it makes sense to call the Morello family the Morello family rather than Genovese or Lucchese. It's my personal opinion.

I agree both the G and L can claim lineage from the Corleonese. But given the faction we call the Lucchese did things the "right" way in terms of falling in life under the BOB whereas the faction we call the "Genoveses" began as a rebel faction that should have been murdered, I'd say the Luccheses are the more deserving. The Gens gained a genetic makeup that was very different than the original Corleonesi of the 00s and 10s while the Luccheses on the other hand continued to have factions that were once in the Corleonesi including the Marinesi and Villafratesi. But that's just my own opinion. Someone could argue Morello's presence in both the Cor and Gens as well as the 'territory' they inherited from Cor which included E Harlem and Little Italy.

Yes, the Genovese family was originally a rebel group, but Maranzano was also a rebel group, nevertheless, then he, like Masseria, “legalized” and became the official boss. This does not prevent the Maranzano family from being considered the direct successor of the Schiro family.

I see the situation with the origins of the Genovese family like this. The official boss of the Morello family was Salvatore Loiacano, but he was killed and the Morello family was officially disbanded. All its members were in limbo. Whoever the boss of Reina's group was, he could not be recognized as the official boss while the conflict continued. Morello applied for the position of boss but was put aside and sentenced to death, but by 1923 the war was over and both bosses, Gaetano Reina and Giuseppe Masseria, were recognized as bosses of their own families. Both groups come from the Morello family, but it can hardly be said that the family that Reina led is 100% a family from the Loiacano era, the same is true about the Masseria family. Both families differ in composition from the Morello family, and both laid claim to the inheritance of the Morello family, in the end a compromise decision was made to consider both families legitimate. That's what D'Aquila decided. It is unlikely that he said in his decision that Masseria is less legitimate than Reina.

Recent discussions on the forum, in which I took part, showed that the Genovese family had and remains a previously underestimated layer of members from East Palermo. These are people from Marineo, Bauchina, Corleone, Lercara Friddi, Cerda and Colledzano, Polizzi Generosa, Petralia Sottana, San Cataldo and so on. Key members of a number of Genovese crews are associated with East Palermo origins, indicating that this is the same element that the family inherited from the Morello family.

Not just Ciro Terranova's East Harlem crew or Salvatore Lucania's Little Italy crew, but probably the New Jersey crew comes from the Morello family. At least this is the impression given by the presence of old-timers with East Palermo heritage in this crew. Genovese also had crews on the Lower East Side, and there were a lot of people there, too, of East Palermo origin.

At the same time, the Lucchese family has quite a few Neapolitan and other continental members. Gagliano and Lucchese actively recruited non-Sicilians during the 1930-1931 war, exemplified by Valachi. The composition of the Gagliano family was already significantly different from the original Morello family. Who knows, maybe the same recruitment was carried out by Reina in 1920-1923?

And given that Neapolitans and Calabrians could join the family back in the days of Loiacano (for example, Fred Toriello or Guarino Moretti), I’m not sure that all this crowd of people from the mainland in Genovese are necessarily newcomers to the Masseria era. All these facts cast doubt on the version that the Genovese family was originally a small fragment of the Loiacano family, which recruited a huge number of non-Sicilians.

Good points. We pretty much agree you just went into more detail about it.

Eastern Sicilians and Jersey, good observation. I never pondered that.

As far as non-Sicilians already being a factor before the split, that's true, but one could make the argument that Masseria put it into overdrive. I'm not of the belief that Massera made 100-200 guys in secret "so he could take on D'Aquila." This isn't World of Warcraft, gunmen dont need buttons to level up and take on larger enemies. Still, how did the Gens go from arguably the smallest in 1923 to one of the largest, even surpassing the Palermitani by 1930. Bonanno claims Masseria was the largest family in the late 20s. And yes, Genovese and others were discussed on wiretaps being "snuck in," while it didn't specify, I got the sense they were sneaking in people here and there, 1-200 to surpass the Gambinos would be kinda hard to get away with.

[Pogo The Clown]

Bonanno claims Masseria was the largest family in the late 20s.

He claimed Masseria was the strongest but Mineo was the largest family in the city.


Pogo

[johnny_scootch]

Some things to keep in mind.

- When a boss dies, the underboss and capidecine lose their official ranks and the Family is officially broken.

Is that what he meant? I get what you’re saying but that’s more of a temporary suspension than a disbandment. I hear disbanded and I think Newark family which got broken up and sold off for parts but I guess the same thing happened to the Morellos to a lesser degree.

[quadtree]

100% agree with the last point. Using the post-60s "public" name of the Families better demonstrates that these were continuous organizations and makes it clear what's being referred to. Saying DiGaetano ran a mafia Family made up of Castellammaresi/Partinicesi/Camporealesi is made more relevant and interesting when the reader understands that this is the Bonanno Family -- not an offshoot or prototype but the exact same Family.

It is slightly different with Morello and Lupo as there is evidence of a split in their Families (confirmed w/ the former, speculated w/ latter) so it isn't accurate to simply say Morello Family = Genovese or Morello = Lucchese but it can still be communicated that the Morello Family produced those Families when it split.

Same applies to the wider organization. Even if nobody called it Cosa Nostra in the 1920s, it can still be referred to that way to avoid confusion as it absolutely is the same organization. Not a spin-off but one continuous org even though there were some changes/developments over the years.

I understand a mafia historian wanting to use only the contemporary terms of the time but that can add to the myth that there was a fundamental difference between the orgs then vs. later, which is what many still assume, or that the connections were more indirect.

The Bonanno family is an easy example. But what to do with the Morello family? Should it still be called the Lucchese family before 1912? Or should we call it the Genovese family?

It makes sense to call Palermitani Gambino, since Colombo is a smaller fragment of Palermitani. But what about the Morello family? Both Lucchese and Genovese have the right to succession with this family, what should it be called? Lucchese retained more continuity from D'Aquila's point of view, and Morello, Masseria and Terranova were outcasts like Joe Bonanno after the Banana War, but then the Masseria family was recognized by the commission and the people they recruited were recognized as men of honor. I believe both Lucchese and Genovese have equal right of succession to the Morello family, so it makes sense to call the Morello family the Morello family rather than Genovese or Lucchese. It's my personal opinion.

I agree both the G and L can claim lineage from the Corleonese. But given the faction we call the Lucchese did things the "right" way in terms of falling in life under the BOB whereas the faction we call the "Genoveses" began as a rebel faction that should have been murdered, I'd say the Luccheses are the more deserving. The Gens gained a genetic makeup that was very different than the original Corleonesi of the 00s and 10s while the Luccheses on the other hand continued to have factions that were once in the Corleonesi including the Marinesi and Villafratesi. But that's just my own opinion. Someone could argue Morello's presence in both the Cor and Gens as well as the 'territory' they inherited from Cor which included E Harlem and Little Italy.

Yes, the Genovese family was originally a rebel group, but Maranzano was also a rebel group, nevertheless, then he, like Masseria, “legalized” and became the official boss. This does not prevent the Maranzano family from being considered the direct successor of the Schiro family.

I see the situation with the origins of the Genovese family like this. The official boss of the Morello family was Salvatore Loiacano, but he was killed and the Morello family was officially disbanded. All its members were in limbo. Whoever the boss of Reina's group was, he could not be recognized as the official boss while the conflict continued. Morello applied for the position of boss but was put aside and sentenced to death, but by 1923 the war was over and both bosses, Gaetano Reina and Giuseppe Masseria, were recognized as bosses of their own families. Both groups come from the Morello family, but it can hardly be said that the family that Reina led is 100% a family from the Loiacano era, the same is true about the Masseria family. Both families differ in composition from the Morello family, and both laid claim to the inheritance of the Morello family, in the end a compromise decision was made to consider both families legitimate. That's what D'Aquila decided. It is unlikely that he said in his decision that Masseria is less legitimate than Reina.

Recent discussions on the forum, in which I took part, showed that the Genovese family had and remains a previously underestimated layer of members from East Palermo. These are people from Marineo, Bauchina, Corleone, Lercara Friddi, Cerda and Colledzano, Polizzi Generosa, Petralia Sottana, San Cataldo and so on. Key members of a number of Genovese crews are associated with East Palermo origins, indicating that this is the same element that the family inherited from the Morello family.

Not just Ciro Terranova's East Harlem crew or Salvatore Lucania's Little Italy crew, but probably the New Jersey crew comes from the Morello family. At least this is the impression given by the presence of old-timers with East Palermo heritage in this crew. Genovese also had crews on the Lower East Side, and there were a lot of people there, too, of East Palermo origin.

At the same time, the Lucchese family has quite a few Neapolitan and other continental members. Gagliano and Lucchese actively recruited non-Sicilians during the 1930-1931 war, exemplified by Valachi. The composition of the Gagliano family was already significantly different from the original Morello family. Who knows, maybe the same recruitment was carried out by Reina in 1920-1923?

And given that Neapolitans and Calabrians could join the family back in the days of Loiacano (for example, Fred Toriello or Guarino Moretti), I’m not sure that all this crowd of people from the mainland in Genovese are necessarily newcomers to the Masseria era. All these facts cast doubt on the version that the Genovese family was originally a small fragment of the Loiacano family, which recruited a huge number of non-Sicilians.

Good points. We pretty much agree you just went into more detail about it.

Eastern Sicilians and Jersey, good observation. I never pondered that.

As far as non-Sicilians already being a factor before the split, that's true, but one could make the argument that Masseria put it into overdrive. I'm not of the belief that Massera made 100-200 guys in secret "so he could take on D'Aquila." This isn't World of Warcraft, gunmen dont need buttons to level up and take on larger enemies. Still, how did the Gens go from arguably the smallest in 1923 to one of the largest, even surpassing the Palermitani by 1930. Bonanno claims Masseria was the largest family in the late 20s. And yes, Genovese and others were discussed on wiretaps being "snuck in," while it didn't specify, I got the sense they were sneaking in people here and there, 1-200 to surpass the Gambinos would be kinda hard to get away with.

We don't know exactly how the Genovese family was formed. Did Masseria and Morello run around the social clubs of the Camorra with the offer to “join another secret society?” History is silent about this. In fact, we know that Vito Genovese was accepted into the mafia in 1923. Note that this is the year the conflict ended and is believed to be the year the Masseria family was recognized nationally. If Genovese was accepted after the war and not during, this alone makes one wonder whether the expansion of the Genovese family and the acceptance of large numbers of non-Sicilians was related to the war, or was it a post-war thing agreed upon with D'Aquila?

When other non-Sicilians were made is unknown. There is a later story with Al Capone, to whom Masseria pricked his finger and immediately gave him the rank of capodecina, giving him the opportunity to accept 10 more people from his Camorrist environment into the mafia. Perhaps the same pattern followed the initiation into the mafia of Rocco Pellegrino, Vito Genovese and others.

If this is so, then I suggest taking a closer look at the Capone story. Capone was an associate of Masseria, possibly on Frank Yale's crew. The proof is that we know that Capone obeyed Masseria and sent him money. Most likely, Capone's predecessors Johnny Torrio and Vincenzo Colosimo were also associated with the Morello family, although there is no hard evidence. They could even be members of the mafia, this has already been discussed on the forum.

If Capone was subordinate to Masseria, then Capone's subordinates are associates of the second order. That is, accepting Capone and his people into the family is not the same as picking up a random person on the street in order to increase the influence of the family, Capone and his people were already working for Masseria, and these were not random people.

I suspect that the other non-Sicilians in the Masseria family were also not random people at the time of their induction into the mafia, but were associates back in the 1910s. It has recently been discovered that Guarino Moretti was close to Lo Monte back in the mid-1910s. Frankie Yale may have already been a member by 1920. There is evidence that the Calabrians were accepted before the Neapolitans. Fred Toriello, a Neapolitan, may have been admitted as early as 1916 or 1917. And the Calabrians were accepted long before this date. This means at least some of the people we thought were accepted by Masseria were accepted in the 1910s.

We do not know what percentage of the non-Sicilians of the 1931 Masseria family were accepted by Masseria and what percentage were inherited from the Loiacano era, but even if most of these people were not members of the Mafia at the time of 1920, they may have been associated. The mafia is a very closed society, it is not easy to penetrate there from the outside; the candidate for admission must be known before being initiated into membership. Al Capone has been associated with the family possibly since the 1910s, but it was made in 1928. Many prominent members of the "Neapolitan faction" were created quite late. Strollo, presumably in 1931, Tieri, Brescio, Celano and De Feo in the mid-1930s. We do not know the personal composition of the family at the time of 1923, so all these crowds of Neapolitans in the 1960s could have been accepted later than we think. Even after the Castellammarese war.

So even if Masseria recruited a lot, it is unlikely that he recruited among people unknown to him. During war, career growth occurs quickly. Valachi was accepted very quickly when he committed the murder for Maranzano. But of those whom we see recruited by Masseria, very few are random people. They sometimes have very deep ties to the Morello family (Moretti, Capone, Yale).

If we talk about continuity with the Morello family. We do not know how many people were in the Loiacano family, how many were in the Morello rebel group, how many were in the “Reina group”. I assume that most of the former Loiacano family stood on the sidelines and did not join any of the warring factions, this is the typical behavior of the majority during mafia wars. Who the neutrals joined after the war is a question.

It is also worth mentioning that there may have been many more Sicilians in the Masseria family than we think. Such little-known and little-discussed figures as Gandolfo Curto, Domenico Di Dato, Vincenzo Generosa, Arcangelo La Padura, Gaetano Licata were Sicilians from crews where there were quite a few Sicilians even by the 1960s. It's scary to think how many Sicilians were in the family in the early 1920s. There are many gaps in our understanding of the Sicilian origins of the Genovese family.

From this I conclude that it is too early to say that the Genovese family is less of a successor to the Loiacano family than the Reina family. We have too little information. It would be great to resurrect D'Aquila, Reina, Masseria, Galliano, Lucania and ask what they think about this. But even then, we would most likely hear different answers.