Which LCN family first showed signs of democracy?

[InCamelot]

(Pre-Genovese council thing in the 50s, 60s)

[Wiseguy]

What is this, the fuckin' U.N. now?

[Pogo The Clown]

The old guys set this up as a paramilitary organization. We need a supreme commander at the top, not the fucking Dave Clark Five.


Pogo

[Amershire_Ed]

What I was thinking was a triumver...thing. Like Caesar.

[thekiduknow]

What I was thinking was a triumver...thing. Like Caesar.

“Sopranos have two bosses”

“That’s not all it’s cracked up to be, believe you me”

[Pogo The Clown]

Three of the other families have this arrangement.


Pogo

[Rat]

Hey this way you're not such a big target for the feds

[Dave65827]

Ight Forget it , forget I said it !!!!

[InCamelot]

I should have fucking known.

.....



So that's it then. No leeway, no compromise, just stupid fuckin' jokes.

[eboli]

The Genovese ruling panels happened after Vito's death. That's after February 1969, which is fairly late on the LCN timeline. My opinion is that they implemented it from Chicago, and Catena had a lot to do with it. Whether Chicago had something set up earlier, in the 1930s for example, other than the Top Boss arrangement from the 1950s-1960s, I really don't know. The Chicago experts on this board have more knowledge than me on the subject. Outside of these two families, the only thing I've seen resembling a panel that early on is the San Jose crime family. Allegedly Onofrio Sciortino had some sort of 'council' that advised him. By 'council' read more than one person, and not simply a single advisor, which easily could've been his brother. Onofrio was still the boss, regardless of any other arrangements.

[B.]

Check out the Consiglio thread:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=6598

Democracy (or at least the guise of it) goes back to the Sicilian mafia and earliest days of the US mafia. There has always been a distribution of power and the boss was supposed to be a representative (hence "rappresentante"), not a tyrannical "boss." It didn't always play out that way but they went through the formal motions of it.

It turns out the capo dei capi also had layers of democracy under him that inclued the Consiglio Supremo and National Assembly.

[InCamelot]

Thanks Eboli and B.

That thread is amazing. And what a find, especially compared to the general assumptions about American LCN history.

Was Masseria the first to overtly throw those traditions away in dictatorship fashion then?

[B.]

No, D'Aquila was described by Gentile as a fearsome tyrant also. I think it depends on who is talking and where their allegiance lies. Gentile paints a much different picture of Masseria than Masseria's enemies and though he makes D'Aquila out to be a tyrant, we also know from Gentile that the Grand Council and Assembly were in use under D'Aquila. Morello's letters from the early 1900s show that he was very serious about the specific duties of the Grand Council and Assembly while he was capo dei capi, too. Guys like this were feared and powerful, but I don't think Morello would have been capo dei capi for ~10 (?) years and D'Aquila for ~15 years if they didn't honor the system to some degree. These guys don't tolerate much abuse if they can help it.

The reality is it just isn't possible for a boss let alone a capo dei capi to control everything himself even if he wanted. Some of the democratic systems in mafia history like the consiglio, Consiglio Supremo, and Assembly were as much about democracy as they were a practical necessity. Even the Bible talks about how a leader can't micromanage everything, i.e. when Jethro visits Moses and tells him he will lose his mind if he keeps trying to mediate the affairs of the tribe by himself all day. Even if a boss or capo dei capi wanted to be a tyrant, he is going to have to delegate anyway and in doing so there is going to be an element of democracy. Might as well have a formal system for it.

My take is that the Grand Consiglio, like the consiglio in individual families, was a body with a very specific "fixed" membership. These men were either chosen or elected to carry out duties similar to the individual family consiglio but pertaining to national issues and policy. The capo dei capi in theory was supposed to be like a "chief advisor" or "head counselor" (some have described the position this way) above or within this Grand Consiglio, but of course the reality didn't always reflect that. The Grand Consiglio might have been comparable to congressmen or senators (though that could be said for all family bosses, hence being most commonly called "rappresentanti" in the early days).

On the other hand, I suspect the National Assembly could include whatever representative(s) a family wanted to send, not necessarly a "fixed" individual like the Grand Consiglio members. I believe the 1928 Cleveland meeting was a National Assembly meeting, as some of the attendees are young or otherwise don't appear to be high-ranking members but nonetheless served as representatives of different families across the US. However, the Cleveland newspapers at the time referred to it as the mafia's "Grand Council" -- was this a lucky guess or was something overheard during the arrests/investigation? To make matters more confusing, I believe the Grand Consiglio could attend a National Assembly meeting and the two terms aren't mutually exclusive though they refer to different things.

There is also democracy inside families in that the membership votes for boss and consigliere, though that process can be rigged as we know. The capo dei capi was also voted into position by the bosses of individual families. Stefano Magaddino talked about a meeting where national bosses were proposing candidates for capo dei capi and voting on it. All of this voting likely goes back to the start of the mafia.

[InCamelot]

No, D'Aquila was described by Gentile as a fearsome tyrant also. I think it depends on who is talking and where their allegiance lies. Gentile paints a much different picture of Masseria than Masseria's enemies and though he makes D'Aquila out to be a tyrant, we also know from Gentile that the Grand Council and Assembly were in use under D'Aquila. Morello's letters from the early 1900s show that he was very serious about the specific duties of the Grand Council and Assembly while he was capo dei capi, too. Guys like this were feared and powerful, but I don't think Morello would have been capo dei capi for ~10 (?) years and D'Aquila for ~15 years if they didn't honor the system to some degree. These guys don't tolerate much abuse if they can help it.

The reality is it just isn't possible for a boss let alone a capo dei capi to control everything himself even if he wanted. Some of the democratic systems in mafia history like the consiglio, Consiglio Supremo, and Assembly were as much about democracy as they were a practical necessity. Even the Bible talks about how a leader can't micromanage everything, i.e. when Jethro visits Moses and tells him he will lose his mind if he keeps trying to mediate the affairs of the tribe by himself all day. Even if a boss or capo dei capi wanted to be a tyrant, he is going to have to delegate anyway and in doing so there is going to be an element of democracy. Might as well have a formal system for it.

My take is that the Grand Consiglio, like the consiglio in individual families, was a body with a very specific "fixed" membership. These men were either chosen or elected to carry out duties similar to the individual family consiglio but pertaining to national issues and policy. The capo dei capi in theory was supposed to be like a "chief advisor" or "head counselor" (some have described the position this way) above or within this Grand Consiglio, but of course the reality didn't always reflect that. The Grand Consiglio might have been comparable to congressmen or senators (though that could be said for all family bosses, hence being most commonly called "rappresentanti" in the early days).

On the other hand, I suspect the National Assembly could include whatever representative(s) a family wanted to send, not necessarly a "fixed" individual like the Grand Consiglio members. I believe the 1928 Cleveland meeting was a National Assembly meeting, as some of the attendees are young or otherwise don't appear to be high-ranking members but nonetheless served as representatives of different families across the US. However, the Cleveland newspapers at the time referred to it as the mafia's "Grand Council" -- was this a lucky guess or was something overheard during the arrests/investigation? To make matters more confusing, I believe the Grand Consiglio could attend a National Assembly meeting and the two terms aren't mutually exclusive though they refer to different things.

There is also democracy inside families in that the membership votes for boss and consigliere, though that process can be rigged as we know. The capo dei capi was also voted into position by the bosses of individual families. Stefano Magaddino talked about a meeting where national bosses were proposing candidates for capo dei capi and voting on it. All of this voting likely goes back to the start of the mafia.

Very interesting. And great research btw. So with that being said, what might be some of the possible reasons that the Grand Consiglio and Assembly were eventually somewhat done away with?

[B.]

The Commission seems to have replaced both the Grand Consiglio and capo dei capi. When Gentile first cooperated, he used the term Gran Consiglio (or a close variation) to basically describe the Commission members of the 1930s. Given he was involved with the original Gran Consiglio, it's very telling that Gentile would use the same term to describe Commission members.