The Five Families

Chapter Opening

On a winter evening in January 1962, a slender man in his early fifties sat before a Senate subcommittee in Washington, D.C., and began to talk. His name was Joseph Valachi, and he was a low-ranking soldier, a made member, in what he called the Cosa Nostra, or "our thing." What Valachi described over the course of days of testimony was the internal architecture of organized crime in New York City: the ranks, the rituals, the territories, the rules, and above all the names. Families. Bosses. Captains. The Commission. The names he named would become the organizing vocabulary for decades of law enforcement investigation, journalistic coverage, prosecutorial strategy, and cultural fascination. Chief among the structures he described were the Five Families of New York, the criminal organizations that had been the dominant powers in American organized crime since the reorganization of the early 1930s.

The Five Families were not simply gangs writ large. They were a particular institutional form, inherited from Sicilian origins, adapted to the peculiar conditions of American urban life, and stabilized through a combination of internal discipline, external corruption, and carefully negotiated territorial arrangements. Each of the five operated in specific geographic areas of New York City and its immediate surroundings. Each had an internal hierarchy of authority, from the boss at the top through the underboss and consigliere, down through captains who supervised crews of soldiers and associates. Each had developed, over decades, relationships with labor unions, political figures, business owners, law enforcement officers, and the courts, relationships that allowed criminal enterprises to operate with relative security beneath the surface of legitimate urban life.

The five organizations were the Bonanno Family, headquartered initially in Brooklyn and closely connected to ties reaching back to the early twentieth century immigration from Sicily; the Colombo Family, also rooted in Brooklyn, smaller in scale but significant in the waterfront, loan sharking, and gambling operations it controlled; the Gambino Family, which by the middle decades of the twentieth century had become the largest and arguably the most powerful of the five, with extensive reach into labor unions, construction, and the waterfront; the Genovese Family, widely considered the most sophisticated and politically connected of the five, with a history reaching back through decades of New York underworld development; and the Lucchese Family, active in the garment district, at the airports, and in construction, known for its quiet discipline and the longevity of its leadership.

Understanding the Five Families requires understanding several things simultaneously. It requires understanding the history of each organization individually: where it came from, who led it, how it organized its criminal activities, how it related to the broader Commission structure that Lucky Luciano had established, and how it navigated the decades of internal conflict, external pressure, and adaptive challenge that shaped its development. It also requires understanding the Five Families as a collective system, a set of organizations that competed and cooperated, that divided territory and adjudicated disputes, and that together constituted what historians and criminologists have called the American Mafia at its institutional peak.

It requires, equally, understanding what the Five Families were not. They were not monolithic or static institutions. They changed leadership, shifted geographic emphasis, expanded into new criminal markets, suffered defections and betrayals, and adapted, with varying success, to the changing conditions of American urban society across the middle and late twentieth century. They were not all-powerful. They coexisted with, competed against, and sometimes collaborated with criminal organizations from other ethnic communities, including African American numbers operations in Harlem, Jewish criminal figures in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and later Puerto Rican, Dominican, and other immigrant criminal networks. They were not invincible. From the 1960s onward, they faced increasingly sophisticated federal law enforcement, beginning with Robert Kennedy's Justice Department and culminating in the RICO prosecutions of the 1980s and 1990s, that dismantled much of what had been built over half a century.

This chapter examines each of the Five Families in turn, tracing its origins, organizational structure, leadership history, primary criminal activities, and trajectory across the decades of its greatest power and its eventual decline. It then examines the Five Families as a collective system, analyzing how the territorial division of New York functioned, how disputes were managed and how they broke into violence, and what the Commission structure meant in practice for the day-to-day operation of organized crime in the city. Throughout, the chapter attends to the human dimensions of these organizations: the lives of those who participated in them, the communities that were victimized by their extortion and exploitation, and the larger social forces, immigration, urbanization, Prohibition, labor conflict, political corruption, that made their rise possible and their persistence, for decades, largely uninterrupted.

The Five Families represent one of the most elaborately studied criminal institutions in American history. They have generated thousands of pages of law enforcement reports, congressional testimony, journalistic investigation, academic analysis, and cultural representation. They have been mythologized and sensationalized, sometimes to the point of distortion. This chapter aims to cut through the mythology to examine what the historical evidence actually reveals: organizations that were powerful, violent, economically significant, and deeply embedded in the social fabric of mid-twentieth century American cities, but that were also vulnerable, internally fractious, often incompetent, and ultimately unable to survive the combination of federal prosecution and social change that transformed their environment in the final decades of the twentieth century.

Learning Objectives

Guiding Historical Questions

Historical Context

The Five Families did not emerge from a vacuum. They were the institutional residue of a longer history of criminal organization among Italian immigrants in American cities, shaped at every stage by the social conditions that surrounded them. That history began in earnest in the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth, when mass immigration from southern Italy and Sicily created dense ethnic communities in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, and other American cities. Those communities brought with them social norms, modes of dispute resolution, and patterns of mutual obligation that were distinctly shaped by the conditions of their places of origin, including the tradition of the Mafia in Sicily and the Camorra in Naples, discussed in earlier chapters of this textbook.

In the early years, criminal activity among Italian immigrants in American cities was relatively disorganized. The Black Hand extortion rackets that terrified immigrant neighborhoods in the 1890s and early 1900s were typically operated by small groups or individuals who preyed on their own ethnic communities, demanding payments under threat of violence. These operations lacked the institutional structure, territorial stability, and political protection that would characterize organized crime in its mature form. They were also largely confined to the immigrant community itself; the larger American economy and its institutions were relatively inaccessible to criminal organizations that lacked the linguistic fluency, social connections, and organizational sophistication to penetrate them.

Prohibition changed this fundamentally. The Eighteenth Amendment, ratified in 1919 and taking effect in 1920, created an enormous demand for illegal alcohol across all social classes and ethnic communities. Supplying that demand required capital, organization, supply chains, distribution networks, protection from law enforcement, and the capacity to manage violence in competitive markets. The criminal organizations that thrived under Prohibition were those that developed precisely these capabilities. The profits of bootlegging allowed Italian-American criminal organizations to expand far beyond the ethnic enclave, to build relationships with politicians, police, and judges, to develop the financial resources needed to sustain complex operations, and to recruit and retain talented organizers and enforcers.

The wars of the late 1920s and early 1930s, culminating in the Castellammarese War discussed in the preceding chapter, produced the reorganization from which the Five Families emerged. Lucky Luciano's ascendancy in 1931, and the creation of the Commission that followed, established the institutional framework within which the Five Families would operate for the next half century. The Commission divided New York among five organizations, established procedures for dispute resolution, prohibited unauthorized killings of made members, and created a degree of stability that allowed criminal enterprises to focus on profit accumulation rather than constant competitive violence.

The decades from the mid-1930s through the early 1960s were the period of maximum institutional consolidation for the Five Families. The end of Prohibition in 1933 forced a diversification away from bootlegging into gambling, loan sharking, labor racketeering, and the infiltration of legitimate businesses. The Second World War, paradoxically, created opportunities for organized crime through black market operations, defense contract fraud, and the extension of control over critical wartime industries, particularly the waterfront through which military supplies flowed. The postwar economic expansion created new opportunities in construction, the garment industry, airports, and the growth industries of mid-century American capitalism.

By the time Joseph Valachi sat before the Senate subcommittee in 1963, the Five Families had been the dominant organized criminal institutions in New York City for approximately three decades. They employed thousands of people across a range of legal and illegal activities, generated revenues that contemporaries estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and had so thoroughly penetrated certain sectors of the city's economy, particularly construction, the waterfront, and the garment industry, that doing business in those sectors without accommodation with organized crime was, for many firms, simply not possible. Understanding how each of the five organizations contributed to this collective system is the central task of this chapter.

It is also important to note what the Five Families were not. They were not the only organized criminal organizations in New York. Jewish criminal figures, particularly those with connections to the older Meyer Lansky network, remained active and influential. African American and later Puerto Rican criminal organizations controlled significant portions of the numbers racket in Harlem, the South Bronx, and other Black and Latino neighborhoods. Irish organized crime retained a presence in certain neighborhoods of the Bronx and Brooklyn. The Five Families operated within a complex ecology of organized crime, not as its sole inhabitants. Their dominance was real but partial, concentrated in particular industries and particular communities, and always contested at the margins by competing organizations and individual entrepreneurs who operated in the spaces the five left available.

Chronology Preview

Major People, Groups, and Places

Core Vocabulary Preview

The following key terms appear throughout this chapter. Understanding each term before proceeding to the main sections will significantly aid comprehension.

The Bonanno Family

The Bonanno Family traced its American origins to the early years of Sicilian immigration, but its modern institutional form was created by a single remarkable figure: Joseph Charles Bonanno, born in Castellammare del Golfo, Sicily, in 1905, who would lead the organization bearing his name from 1931 until his forced retirement in 1968. Bonanno was among the most capable criminal administrators of his generation, a man whose intelligence, organizational instinct, and political sophistication shaped not only his own borgata but the broader structure of American organized crime. He was present at the creation, one of the key figures in the negotiations following the Castellammarese War that produced the Commission, and he remained a senior statesman of the Cosa Nostra for decades.

The Bonanno Family's primary territory was centered on the Williamsburg and Bushwick neighborhoods of Brooklyn, with significant influence extending into the Ridgewood section of Queens and, over time, into parts of Long Island, upstate New York, Arizona, and southern California. The family also maintained connections to Montreal and to the Sicilian Mafia that would later prove significant in international narcotics trafficking. In the 1950s, the Bonanno organization had an estimated membership of around two hundred to three hundred soldiers, making it mid-sized among the Five Families, neither the largest, which was the Gambino Family, nor the smallest, which was generally considered the Colombo.

The Bonanno Family's criminal portfolio under Joseph Bonanno's leadership centered on the same activities that sustained all five families: numbers gambling, bookmaking on horse racing and sports events, loan sharking, and the collection of tribute from businesses operating within their territories. The family also developed significant interests in the garment industry in Brooklyn, in certain construction and trucking operations, and in the movement of goods through controlled distribution networks. Joseph Bonanno himself maintained a more elevated profile than most of his peers, cultivating relationships with legitimate businessmen, community leaders, and even some political figures, and projecting an image of a prosperous, respectable businessman that obscured his actual position.

The Bonanno Family's connections to Sicily were unusually strong and unusually persistent. Joseph Bonanno maintained personal and organizational ties to Sicilian criminal networks that his fellow bosses generally regarded as complicated and potentially dangerous. Those ties would eventually contribute to the organization's involvement in international narcotics trafficking, particularly the "Pizza Connection" heroin network that operated from the late 1970s through the early 1980s, in which Bonanno-connected figures in New York and Sicilian Mafia networks collaborated to move heroin from Sicily through pizza parlors that served as distribution fronts across the northeastern United States. The Pizza Connection case, prosecuted in the mid-1980s, resulted in the conviction of dozens of defendants and represented one of the most significant international narcotics prosecutions of the era.

The succession crisis that unfolded in the Bonanno Family beginning in the early 1960s was among the most damaging organizational convulsions experienced by any of the Five Families in the postwar era. Joseph Bonanno, aging but still ambitious, made a series of decisions that deeply alarmed his fellow bosses on the Commission. Most seriously, Bonanno was alleged to have plotted the murders of several other bosses, including Carlo Gambino and Tommy Lucchese, a violation of Commission rules of such severity that it could not be ignored. In October 1964, Bonanno was abducted, apparently by associates of the Buffalo Family acting on Commission orders, initiating a period of forced retirement and negotiation. His absence triggered what became known as the "Banana War," a prolonged internal conflict between factions loyal to Bonanno and those supporting the Commission-recognized acting leadership of Gaspar DiGregorio and later Paul Sciacca.

The Banana War lasted roughly from 1964 to 1968 and left the Bonanno organization severely damaged. Open street warfare between the two factions, rare in the disciplined world of Cosa Nostra after 1931, generated unwanted law enforcement attention and cost the family lives, money, and institutional credibility. Joseph Bonanno formally retired to Arizona in 1968, and under the subsequent leadership of Natale Evola, Philip Rastelli, and others, the family worked to rebuild its coherence and its standing on the Commission, a process that took years and was never fully completed. The Commission's diminished confidence in Bonanno leadership, and the family's own internal divisions, would make it uniquely vulnerable when the federal prosecutions of the 1980s arrived.

Perhaps most notoriously, the Bonanno Family was the only one of the Five Families to be infiltrated by an undercover FBI agent in the modern era. Joseph Pistone, operating under the name "Donnie Brasco," spent six years from 1976 to 1981 working his way into the Bonanno organization, eventually achieving associate status and developing close relationships with soldiers and captains. Pistone's operation, later documented in his book and a major Hollywood film, provided the FBI with an unprecedented window into the day-to-day operations of an organized crime family and produced prosecutions that helped accelerate the Bonanno Family's decline. The revelation that the organization had admitted an undercover agent to near-membership status was a source of profound embarrassment and ongoing internal suspicion that damaged the family's social fabric for years afterward.

Bonanno Leadership Structure and Administration

Under Joseph Bonanno, the family's administrative structure was relatively traditional. The boss held ultimate authority, with an underboss serving as day-to-day operational manager and a consigliere, or counselor, providing advice and serving as a mediator for disputes within the organization. Below the administration, a tier of captains, or capos, each supervised a crew of soldiers, whose number might range from a handful to several dozen depending on the captain's standing and the revenue-generating capacity of his crew. Associates, who were not formally inducted members of Cosa Nostra but who conducted business with the family and paid tribute on their activities, surrounded the organization's formal membership and constituted its primary contact with the wider criminal economy.

The Bonanno Family's territorial coherence was supported by a relatively homogeneous membership base in its early decades. Joseph Bonanno had insisted on recruiting primarily from Castellammarese families, maintaining a tight ethnic and regional identity within the organization that strengthened its cultural cohesion but also limited its flexibility in adapting to demographic change in its core neighborhoods. As Brooklyn's Italian-American community dispersed to the suburbs in the postwar decades, the family's geographic base eroded, and successive leadership struggled to maintain the density of local relationships that had made the organization's territorial control relatively efficient in earlier years.

The Colombo Family

The organization that would come to be known as the Colombo Family was founded in the early 1930s under the leadership of Joseph Profaci, a Sicilian immigrant who had established himself in the olive oil and tomato paste importing business and who combined legitimate commercial enterprise with criminal activities in a pattern typical of the early Mafia in American cities. Profaci was one of the original members of the Commission in 1931 and led his organization for three decades, making him one of the longest-serving bosses in the history of the Five Families. He was also, by the standards of his peers, unusually devout, maintaining prominent connections to the Catholic Church and cultivating an image of religious respectability that sat in notable tension with the brutal realities of his criminal enterprise.

The Profaci Family, as it was known during his leadership, was centered primarily in the Red Hook and Carroll Gardens neighborhoods of Brooklyn and extended into parts of Staten Island and New Jersey. It was generally the smallest of the Five Families in terms of formal membership, with estimates ranging from about a hundred to perhaps a hundred and fifty made members at its peak, but its size did not prevent it from controlling significant criminal revenues from numbers gambling, bookmaking, loan sharking, and its share of waterfront activity. Profaci himself was known within the organization for a tightfistedness that eventually produced serious internal tension, demanding higher tribute from his own soldiers than they felt was warranted, and keeping an unusually large share of organizational revenues for himself.

This tension exploded in the early 1960s in what became known as the Gallo-Profaci War, one of the more significant internal conflicts in the history of the Five Families. A faction of young, aggressive members led by the three Gallo brothers, Albert, Larry, and Joseph "Crazy Joe" Gallo, chafed under what they saw as Profaci's exploitative tribute demands and his failure to reward loyalty adequately. In 1961, the Gallo faction kidnapped several senior family figures as leverage for a renegotiation of the family's internal economics. The resulting conflict, which included several murders and attempted murders on both sides, consumed the family's energy and attention for years, generating law enforcement interest and damaging the organization's revenue-generating capacity at the same time.

Joseph Profaci died of natural causes in 1962, and his successor, Joseph Magliocco, served only briefly before his own illness forced his retirement and his death in 1963. The circumstances of Magliocco's departure were complicated by allegations that he had conspired with Joseph Bonanno in the plot against Gambino and Lucchese, a charge that, if true, would have made his gentle removal by the Commission a remarkably lenient response. The family passed to the leadership of Joseph Colombo, a Brooklyn-born second-generation Italian American who brought a very different style of leadership to an organization still struggling with the Gallo conflict's aftermath.

Joseph Colombo was unusual among Mafia bosses in his public visibility and political activism. In 1970, he founded the Italian-American Civil Rights League, an organization that protested what it characterized as anti-Italian bias in law enforcement and media, including the FBI's organized crime investigations and the use of the word "Mafia" in public discourse. The League attracted genuine support from Italian-American communities that felt themselves collectively stigmatized by the association of their ethnicity with organized crime, and it organized large rallies in New York City that attracted tens of thousands of participants. The spectacle of a Mafia boss leading a civil rights organization was not lost on observers, and Colombo's fellow bosses were reportedly uncomfortable with the attention his activism attracted to organized crime generally.

In June 1971, at a Unity Day rally in Columbus Circle organized by the Italian-American Civil Rights League, Joseph Colombo was shot three times in the head by a gunman named Jerome Johnson, an African American man with connections to the Gallo faction, who was himself immediately killed by Colombo's bodyguard. Colombo survived but was left in a permanent vegetative state, effectively ending his leadership of the family. The attack was widely attributed to Joey Gallo and the dissident faction, settling old scores from the earlier internal conflict. Gallo himself was murdered at a Little Italy restaurant in April 1972, apparently in retaliation, ending the most violent phase of the intra-family conflict.

The Colombo Family that emerged from these years of turbulence was led by a succession of figures who worked to restore internal order and maintain the organization's criminal revenues, though it never fully regained the institutional coherence of its earlier decades. Carmine Persico, who led the family through much of the 1970s and into the 1980s, was perhaps the most capable administrator among the post-Colombo leadership, but his eventual conviction and lengthy imprisonment in the RICO prosecutions of the mid-1980s left the family in yet another succession crisis, complicated by his continued attempts to manage the organization from prison through his son and various surrogates.

Criminal Activities and Territorial Control

The Colombo Family's criminal portfolio was broadly similar to that of the other Five Families: numbers gambling, sports bookmaking, loan sharking, and tribute collection from businesses and unions in its territory. The family exercised significant influence over certain Brooklyn-based labor unions, particularly in the construction trades, and maintained interests in wholesale food distribution, vending machines, and the service industries of its neighborhoods. Its waterfront interests, while less dominant than those of the Gambino Family, contributed meaningful revenue through control of certain longshoreman locals and the theft and fencing of goods moving through its port areas.

The Colombo Family's smaller size relative to the other five made it in some respects more vulnerable to the attrition of prosecutions and the loss of key figures, but also less obviously threatening to its neighbors, which may have helped it avoid some of the more intense inter-family conflicts that damaged larger organizations. Its territory in South Brooklyn was relatively stable and well-defined, reducing the kind of boundary disputes that periodically generated violence between other families. What it lacked in scale it compensated for in organizational durability, surviving the Gallo conflict, the Colombo shooting, successive leadership crises, and the RICO prosecutions to remain a functioning, if diminished, criminal organization into the twenty-first century.

The Gambino Family

The organization that would become the Gambino Family had its roots in the early New York underworld, passing through several bosses before arriving at the brutal and decisive leadership of Albert Anastasia in the late 1940s. Anastasia was among the most feared figures in the history of American organized crime. Born in Italy in 1902 and arriving in the United States as a young man, he had been involved in criminal activity almost from his first years in Brooklyn, and by the 1930s he had become the chief operational executive of what law enforcement called Murder, Inc., the enforcement arm of the national organized crime network that contracted killings for bosses across the country.

Murder, Inc. operated primarily in the late 1930s and early 1940s and was responsible for an estimated four hundred to five hundred murders, though some historians have questioned the higher estimates. Its principals were primarily Jewish and Italian criminals based in the Brownsville and Ocean Hill sections of Brooklyn, working under the direction of Anastasia and the Jewish crime figure Louis "Lepke" Buchalter. The organization served as a mechanism for solving organizational problems through sanctioned violence, providing the Five Families and the broader national organization with a reservoir of trained killers who would accept assignments from the Commission and deliver results with professional reliability. Murder, Inc.'s exposure came when a low-level member, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, turned informant and provided prosecutors with detailed accounts of dozens of murders, leading to the conviction and execution of several principals, including Buchalter, though Anastasia himself escaped prosecution through a combination of legal technicality and the suspicious death of a key witness.

As boss of the organization that would later bear Carlo Gambino's name, Anastasia was known for his explosive temper, his willingness to authorize violence without the careful deliberation that Commission norms required, and his ambition to expand his power beyond the limits his fellow bosses found acceptable. His undoing came in October 1957, when he was shot to death while seated in the barber chair of the Park Sheraton Hotel in midtown Manhattan, his face covered with a hot towel, in one of the most theatrical and widely publicized mob killings of the era. The murder was widely attributed to the ambitions of Carlo Gambino, who had been maneuvering for the top position, acting in concert with Vito Genovese, who had his own reasons to want Anastasia gone.

Carlo Gambino, who took control of the organization after Anastasia's death, was in most respects Anastasia's opposite. Where Anastasia was impulsive and violent, Gambino was methodical and patient. Where Anastasia sought public power, Gambino cultivated deliberate obscurity. A small, quiet-spoken man who avoided unnecessary social contact and maintained a modest external lifestyle, Gambino was for many years poorly understood by the law enforcement agencies attempting to map the Cosa Nostra's structure. He was, in the judgment of most subsequent historians and prosecutors, the most capable administrator who ever led any of the Five Families, and under his leadership from 1957 until his death of natural causes in 1976, the Gambino organization grew to become by far the largest and most powerful of the five.

The Gambino Family's power rested on several interconnected pillars. First, sheer membership size: by the 1970s, the family had an estimated three hundred to five hundred made members, far more than any other of the Five Families, supported by a much larger number of associates. This scale gave the organization both revenue-generating capacity and enforcement capacity that dwarfed its competitors. Second, labor union penetration: the Gambino Family exercised controlling influence over key locals of the International Longshoremen's Association on the New York-New Jersey waterfront, giving it the ability to tax virtually every piece of cargo moving through one of the world's busiest port complexes. Third, construction industry dominance: through control of key trade union locals and through direct relationships with construction companies and concrete suppliers, the Gambino Family was positioned to extract tribute from virtually every major construction project in New York City, a city that was perpetually rebuilding itself and generating enormous construction revenues.

The Gambino Family's waterfront operations deserve particular attention as a model of organized crime's capacity to penetrate and exploit legitimate economic institutions. Control of the longshoremen's locals meant control of the conditions of employment on the docks: who got jobs, at what rates, under what conditions. It also meant control of the opportunities for theft that the waterfront offered: cargo systematically disappeared from ships and warehouses, fenced through networks that reached into legitimate retail and wholesale businesses. Beyond simple theft, the Gambino presence on the waterfront allowed for the systematic manipulation of labor costs for shipping companies, who found it far cheaper to make regular payments to Gambino representatives than to contest union demands in conditions where work stoppages could be financially devastating.

Carlo Gambino's death in 1976 produced a succession that would have consequences neither he nor anyone else fully anticipated. His chosen successor was Paul Castellano, his cousin by marriage, a prosperous businessman who had built legitimate-seeming enterprises in the meat distribution and supermarket supply industries while maintaining his criminal connections. Castellano's leadership style emphasized the expansion of the family's presence in legitimate business and a degree of distance from the more overtly violent and street-level criminal activities that the lower ranks of the family continued to pursue. This approach generated serious internal friction, particularly among the earners and enforcers who felt that Castellano's business pretensions and physical remoteness from the street represented a betrayal of organizational values and an unfair distribution of criminal revenues.

The most consequential of these disaffected figures was John Gotti, a brash and publicly visible captain from the Howard Beach neighborhood of Queens, who had built his own criminal operation around hijacking, gambling, and loan sharking, and who chafed under what he regarded as Castellano's remote and self-serving leadership. In December 1985, Castellano was shot to death outside Sparks Steak House in midtown Manhattan, in an unauthorized killing of a boss, the most serious violation of Commission rules possible, orchestrated by Gotti and his associates. Gotti's subsequent rise to the leadership of the Gambino Family and his high-profile persona, his expensive suits, his defiant public manner, his repeated acquittals on criminal charges that earned him the media nickname "The Teflon Don," represents a significant chapter in the late history of the Five Families that this textbook will examine further in the chapter on government's response to organized crime.

The Genovese Family

The organization that would eventually carry Vito Genovese's name was in many respects the most historically deep-rooted of the Five Families. Its lineage reached back through the successive leadership of Giuseppe Morello, Ignazio Saietta, and other figures of the early twentieth-century New York underworld, through the bootlegging era, and through the Prohibition-period leadership of Charlie "Lucky" Luciano himself. After Luciano's imprisonment and eventual deportation, the organization passed through a period of effective leadership by Frank Costello, and it was the conflict between Costello and the organization's nominal boss, Vito Genovese, that produced some of the most dramatic episodes in the history of the Five Families.

Vito Genovese was born in a small town near Naples in 1897 and immigrated to the United States as a teenager, eventually making his way into the orbit of the early Italian-American underworld in Lower Manhattan and East Harlem. He was one of the capable young figures who rose during Prohibition, accumulating wealth and influence through bootlegging and developing the relationships with politicians and law enforcement that sustained criminal enterprises over the long term. Genovese fled to Italy in 1937 after a murder indictment, where he ingratiated himself with Mussolini's regime, returned to the United States after the war, and spent years maneuvering to reclaim a dominant position in the organization he regarded as rightfully his.

Frank Costello, who managed the organization during Genovese's absence and effectively during much of the postwar period, represented a very different model of organized crime leadership. Costello cultivated relationships across the spectrum of New York political life with remarkable sophistication, maintaining close ties to Tammany Hall and to Democratic political machines at every level from the neighborhood club to the state legislature. He was known to exercise influence over the appointment of judges, the selection of district attorneys, and the outcome of elections, not through crude bribery alone but through the more complex currency of political favor, financial support, and the cultivation of mutual interest. His political connections were so extensive and so well-documented that the Kefauver Committee made him one of its primary subjects of inquiry in 1951, and his televised testimony, in which only his hands were shown to viewers, became one of the iconic images of that unprecedented public exposure of organized crime.

The conflict between Genovese and Costello came to a head in May 1957, when a gunman named Vincent "The Chin" Gigante shot Costello in the lobby of his Manhattan apartment building. The bullet grazed Costello's head rather than killing him, and Costello, characteristically, declined to identify his assailant to police. He subsequently retired from active leadership, and Genovese formally took control of the organization that would thereafter bear his name. His triumph was short-lived. In 1959, Genovese was convicted on narcotics conspiracy charges, the result in part of a setup that most historians believe was orchestrated by his criminal rivals, possibly including Carlo Gambino and Meyer Lansky, who arranged for a convicted drug dealer to falsely implicate Genovese in a narcotics transaction. Genovese died in prison in 1969, never having led the organization at liberty for more than a few years.

The Genovese Family that operated under his name but without his active direction was led through much of the 1960s and 1970s by a rotating administration, with figures such as Thomas Eboli and Frank Tieri serving as front bosses while the real power resided in the hands of the organization's most capable internal figures. By the late 1970s and into the 1980s, effective control had passed to Vincent "The Chin" Gigante, the same man who had shot Frank Costello in 1957, who would lead the Genovese Family with remarkable effectiveness from behind an elaborate ruse. Gigante, a hulking former boxer, cultivated a public persona of mental incompetence, wandering the streets of Greenwich Village in a bathrobe and appearing disheveled and confused in court proceedings, a performance designed to sustain claims that he was too mentally ill to stand trial. Federal prosecutors eventually pierced this deception and convicted Gigante in 1997, but for nearly two decades the ruse had provided him with a remarkable degree of protection from prosecution.

The Genovese Family was widely regarded by law enforcement and by its criminal peers as the most sophisticated and institutionally stable of the Five Families during the decades of its peak influence. It exercised influence in areas of the city and state quite different from the Brooklyn-centered heartland of the other families, with significant operations in lower Manhattan, the West Side of Manhattan, parts of the Bronx, and northern New Jersey. Its penetration of labor unions included significant influence over the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union locals in Manhattan, giving it a presence in the hospitality industry of the city's major entertainment and business district. It also maintained interests in the Javits Convention Center, in a number of construction and building maintenance companies, and in the waste hauling industry, which would become an increasingly significant source of organized crime revenue in the later decades of the century.

Political Influence and Corruption

The Genovese Family's political connections, built on the foundation of Frank Costello's extraordinary network, made it in some respects the most politically influential of the Five Families. The relationship between organized crime and New York City politics was never simple and is easily oversimplified. Organized crime did not control politicians in the direct sense of issuing orders that were immediately obeyed. The relationship was more complex and more mutual: organized crime provided financial support to political campaigns, mobilized votes in neighborhoods where it had community presence, and offered the informal resolution of problems, labor conflicts, neighborhood disputes, business difficulties, that the formal political system was slow and expensive to address. Politicians in turn provided protection, information, and the use of public authority in ways that benefited criminal enterprises.

This relationship was not static. As reformers periodically succeeded in cleaning up city government, as federal prosecutions dismantled the most visible manifestations of political corruption, and as demographic change altered the political base of the machines that had provided organized crime with its most reliable political allies, the Genovese Family's political reach narrowed and became more opportunistic. But even in the era of federal prosecution, the family's political connections remained more extensive than those of its counterparts, contributing to the general law enforcement perception that it was both the most dangerous and the most difficult to prosecute of the Five Families.

The Lucchese Family

The Lucchese Family, the fifth and in some respects the most consistently disciplined of the New York organized crime families, took its name from Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese, who led the organization from 1953 until his death of natural causes in 1967. Lucchese was in many ways the ideal type of the mid-century Mafia boss: intelligent, patient, careful about publicity, adept at cultivating relationships in the legitimate business world without drawing the kind of attention that brought investigative scrutiny, and capable of maintaining the internal discipline of his organization through a combination of genuine authority and the threat of violence exercised judiciously rather than impulsively. Where Albert Anastasia ruled by terror and Paul Castellano ruled by remote commercial calculation, Tommy Lucchese ruled by a kind of institutional wisdom that his peers respected and his successors struggled to replicate.

The organization's geographic territory centered on East Harlem, where its roots ran deep into the early Italian-American community of that neighborhood, and extended through parts of the Bronx and into New Jersey. It differed from its peers in the particular industries where it concentrated its criminal penetration, placing particular emphasis on the New York garment district in midtown Manhattan, which was one of the most important manufacturing sectors in the city's economy through much of the twentieth century. The garment industry was vulnerable to organized crime penetration for structural reasons that Lucchese's predecessors had recognized and exploited long before he took control: the industry was intensely competitive, operated through a complex web of contractors and subcontractors, depended on reliable and rapid trucking between manufacturers, cutters, and retailers, and had a workforce that was highly unionized. Control of the trucking companies and key union locals gave the Lucchese Family a position of leverage over the entire industry, enabling it to extract tribute from manufacturers who found it cheaper to pay than to contest the organization's demands in conditions where work stoppages or trucking disruptions could be financially ruinous.

Lucchese's personal connections to figures in the legitimate business community were extensive and carefully cultivated. He was a familiar figure in Democratic Party circles in New York and maintained friendships with politicians, judges, and businessmen that testified to his skill at presenting himself as a respectable member of the city's commercial and social world. These connections were not purely ornamental; they provided intelligence about law enforcement activities, protection from prosecution in certain circumstances, and the kind of social legitimacy that made it easier for the family's associates to operate in the legitimate economy without arousing suspicion.

The Lucchese Family also developed a significant presence at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, which had opened as Idlewild Airport in 1948 and grew rapidly to become one of the busiest air cargo hubs in the world. Airport operations offered opportunities for cargo theft that the family exploited with systematic efficiency, supplemented by control of certain Teamster Union locals that represented workers in the air cargo and transportation industries. The scale of theft at Kennedy Airport became something of a public scandal in the 1960s and 1970s, with millions of dollars' worth of cargo disappearing annually through a combination of outright theft and systematic falsification of records. The most spectacular single instance was the Lufthansa heist of December 1978, in which a crew associated with Lucchese captain Paul Vario stole approximately five million dollars in cash and jewels from a vault at the airport, at the time the largest cash robbery in American history. The heist and its bloody aftermath, in which most of the participants were murdered to prevent them from talking, was later depicted in the Martin Scorsese film Goodfellas, which drew heavily on the account of participant-turned-informant Henry Hill.

After Tommy Lucchese's death in 1967, the family passed through several leadership changes that maintained its basic organizational coherence better than some of the other families managed in their succession crises. Carmine Tramunti, Anthony Corallo, and Vittorio Amuso each led the organization in successive eras, with Corallo's leadership in the 1970s and 1980s considered particularly effective before his conviction in the Commission Trial of 1986. Amuso's leadership in the late 1980s and 1990s, conducted partly from prison after his own conviction, was marked by a wave of internal murders that reflected the paranoia and institutional stress produced by the federal assault on the organization.

The Garment District and Labor Control

The Lucchese Family's dominance of the New York garment district offers one of the clearest examples in the history of the Five Families of how organized crime penetrated and exploited a legitimate economic sector. The mechanics of that penetration worked roughly as follows: by controlling key locals of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and related unions, the family could determine the labor conditions under which garment manufacturers operated. Companies that made the appropriate payments received labor peace: their factories operated without strikes or slowdowns, their deliveries arrived on time, and their access to the reliable trucking they needed to move goods from factory to retailer was assured. Companies that refused to pay found themselves facing labor difficulties that could destroy their competitive position in an industry where timing was critical and margins were thin.

The system was self-reinforcing. As more firms accommodated themselves to the tribute system, the competitive disadvantage of refusing to participate increased, since firms that did pay could operate more efficiently and reliably than those that did not, regardless of their relative production costs. This created a powerful incentive for compliance that had little to do with the direct threat of violence, though that threat was always present in the background. The result was a system in which organized crime extracted a consistent and reliable stream of income from one of the city's major industries with relatively little need for the kind of direct coercion that attracted law enforcement attention.

The garment district's gradual decline beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, as manufacturing moved to cheaper labor markets in the American South and abroad, eroded this revenue base. The Lucchese Family adapted by shifting its emphasis to other industries, including waste hauling, construction, and airport operations, where similar mechanisms of labor control and tribute extraction could be applied. This adaptability was a mark of the organization's institutional resilience, though it could not ultimately protect it from the federal prosecution that dismantled its leadership in the 1980s.

The Families at Work: Criminal Activities and Economic Power

The Five Families' collective economic power in mid-twentieth century New York was substantial, and understanding its scale requires examining the range of criminal activities through which it was generated. No comprehensive financial accounting of Five Families revenues exists, both because the organizations operated in the black economy and because much of their income flowed through legitimate business fronts that obscured its criminal origins. Contemporary estimates by law enforcement and journalists varied widely, ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually for the combined revenues of all five families, but these figures should be treated as informed approximations rather than precise measurements.

The single most consistent revenue source for all Five Families across the decades of their peak operation was illegal gambling. Numbers gambling, also called the policy racket, was a form of lottery in which players bet small amounts on a three-digit number drawn from a published source such as stock market figures or racetrack totals. Numbers gambling was enormously popular in working-class and immigrant communities because it offered small-scale participation with the possibility of a meaningful payout, and it operated in every neighborhood the Five Families controlled, generating daily revenues that, accumulated across thousands of bets in hundreds of locations, amounted to very large sums. Sports bookmaking operated through a network of bookies who accepted bets on horse racing, baseball, football, and boxing, with the house holding a consistent mathematical advantage that made it profitable over time regardless of the outcome of individual events.

Loan sharking, or usurious lending at rates far above what legal lenders charged, was the second major revenue pillar. The Five Families provided credit to borrowers who could not obtain bank loans, either because of poor credit histories, the illegal nature of their purposes, or simply the absence of banking services in their communities, at weekly interest rates that typically ran between one and five percent, translating to annual rates of fifty to two hundred and sixty percent. These rates were enormously profitable, and the threat of violence against borrowers who defaulted made the collection process unusually reliable. Loan sharking revenues were also relatively stable across economic cycles, since the demand for emergency credit tended to increase rather than decrease in difficult economic conditions.

Labor racketeering, the systematic corruption of trade unions for the benefit of organized crime, was perhaps the most economically significant activity the Five Families engaged in, because of the scale of the legitimate economic sectors it touched and the multiplier effects of union control on other criminal opportunities. A family that controlled a construction union local could not only extract dues from workers and tribute from employers but could also determine which concrete suppliers received contracts, which moving companies received business, which companies were allowed to operate without interference, and which inspectors were available to overlook code violations. The interlocking nature of these control points meant that control of a single strategic union local could generate revenues and advantages far in excess of that local's direct membership fees.

The legitimate business operations of the Five Families were less straightforwardly criminal but no less significant economically. All five families had, by the postwar decades, invested substantial criminal earnings in legitimate businesses: restaurants, nightclubs, bars, construction companies, trucking firms, wholesale food distributors, vending machine companies, waste hauling operations, and various service businesses. These businesses served multiple purposes simultaneously. They provided legal sources of income that could explain the comfortable lifestyles of criminal figures who had no official employment. They served as vehicles for money laundering, the process of converting criminal revenues into legitimate-appearing funds by routing them through business operations with plausible revenue streams. And they created platforms for further criminal exploitation, since a legitimate trucking company, for instance, could provide both a legal front and a practical mechanism for the theft and distribution of stolen cargo.

The Waterfront and Construction

Two sectors deserve special attention for the depth and durability of their penetration by the Five Families: the New York waterfront and the construction industry. The waterfront had been a center of organized crime activity since the nineteenth century, and by the mid-twentieth century the control exercised by the Five Families, particularly the Gambino organization, over the International Longshoremen's Association locals was so comprehensive that major shipping companies had essentially incorporated Mafia tribute into their operating costs. The journalist Malcolm Johnson's Pulitzer Prize-winning series on waterfront crime in the New York Sun in 1948, which became the basis for Budd Schulberg's screenplay for the 1954 film On the Waterfront, provided the most detailed public account to that point of how this system worked, documenting the shape-up hiring system through which longshoremen who paid kickbacks to their union officials were favored for work, the systematic theft of cargo, and the violence used against workers who protested these conditions.

The construction industry's vulnerability to organized crime penetration rested on structural features that organized crime did not create but systematically exploited. New York's construction sector was intensely competitive, operated under tight deadlines that made labor disruptions enormously costly, and required the cooperation of multiple different trade unions, each of which might be susceptible to organized crime influence. A developer building a major project in 1960s or 1970s New York might find himself needing to accommodate organized crime interests not once but multiple times, as different families controlled different trade locals and expected tribute at each stage of construction. The concrete industry, in particular, was so thoroughly controlled by organized crime through the Gambino and Genovese families' influence over concrete workers' unions and concrete supply companies that prosecutors in the 1980s were able to demonstrate that virtually every major concrete pour in New York City for a period of years had generated tribute payments to organized crime.

Rivalry, Diplomacy, and Violence Among the Five Families

The Five Families did not coexist in simple peace or simple warfare. Their relationship was considerably more complex, a mixture of competitive rivalry, cooperative division of labor, institutional diplomacy, and episodic violence, managed through the mechanisms that the Commission had been established to provide. Understanding how this inter-family system worked in practice requires understanding both the formal rules the Commission attempted to enforce and the informal politics of prestige, ambition, and calculation through which the bosses actually related to one another.

The territorial division of New York among the Five Families was never perfectly clean or static. Each family had a primary geographic heartland where its control was most complete and least contested, but the city's economic life did not confine itself neatly within neighborhood borders, and the industries the families penetrated, construction, waste hauling, the waterfront, the garment district, cut across geographic territories in ways that created permanent potential for overlap and conflict. The Commission's primary function was to provide a forum in which these overlaps could be negotiated before they became violent, and a mechanism for resolving disputes when negotiation failed.

The rules the Commission attempted to enforce were well-documented through informant accounts and eventually through the Commission Trial itself. No boss was to be killed without Commission approval. No made member of one family was to be touched by another family without authorization. Disputes over territory or business arrangements were to be brought to the Commission for adjudication rather than resolved through unilateral violence. The concrete industry's tribute system was to be divided in fixed proportions among the families with relevant interests. These rules were not always followed, and their violation was itself a significant category of organizational event, but their existence and the general expectation that they would be observed provided a framework of institutional predictability that reduced the level of violence below what would otherwise have prevailed.

The sit-down, or formal meeting to resolve a dispute, was the primary institutional mechanism through which inter-family tensions were managed. When a conflict arose between members of different families, the captains involved were expected to meet, accompanied by their respective bosses or their representatives, to negotiate a resolution. The sit-down reproduced in criminal form the dispute-resolution procedures of legitimate business and labor arbitration, providing a structured setting in which grievances could be stated, counter-claims made, and resolutions negotiated. The presence of senior figures from outside the immediate dispute provided a form of institutional authority that could give a resolution the legitimacy needed to be accepted by both parties.

When the formal mechanisms failed, violence followed. The history of the Five Families is punctuated with episodes of inter-family violence, most of them settled quickly and quietly, some of them generating the kind of extended conflict that damaged multiple organizations and attracted unwanted law enforcement attention. The murder of Albert Anastasia in 1957 was technically an internal Gambino Family matter, but its authorization apparently involved Vito Genovese and possibly Carlo Gambino, making it a covert act of inter-family politics. The subsequent Appalachin Meeting, called partly to explain and ratify what had happened, exposed the national organized crime leadership to law enforcement in a way that had lasting consequences.

Perhaps the most significant violation of Commission norms in the postwar era was John Gotti's 1985 murder of Paul Castellano, which was unauthorized by the Commission and was in direct violation of the rule against killing a sitting boss without prior approval. The fact that Gotti not only survived this violation but flourished in its immediate aftermath, becoming one of the most publicly visible and apparently powerful organized crime figures of the 1980s, suggested that the Commission's enforcement capacity had been significantly eroded by the attrition of prosecutions and the imprisonment of senior figures. The Commission Trial that followed in 1986, built in part on evidence of the system the Commission had maintained for decades, illustrated both the system's historical effectiveness and its contemporary vulnerability.

The Commission as Governance Institution

Scholars of organized crime have debated the appropriate conceptual framework for understanding the Commission. Some analysts have characterized it primarily as a cartel: an agreement among competing criminal enterprises to restrain competition, divide markets, and maintain prices, analogous to the price-fixing agreements among legitimate corporations that antitrust law prohibits. In this view, the Commission's principal function was economic, reducing the costs that competitive violence imposed on the participating organizations and stabilizing the revenue streams that all five depended on.

Others have characterized the Commission as a form of governance, a set of institutions through which a community, in this case the American organized crime community, made and enforced rules for itself in the absence of access to the formal state mechanisms of law and contract enforcement. This framing draws on the insight that criminal organizations cannot use the legal system to enforce their agreements, and must therefore develop alternative mechanisms of dispute resolution and contract enforcement, which the Commission provided. The violence that the Commission both authorized and restrained was, in this view, the functional equivalent of the state's monopoly on legitimate force: a mechanism for making agreements credible and for enforcing the rules of the system against those who violated them.

Both frameworks capture something real about what the Commission was and how it functioned. It was simultaneously a cartel that served the economic interests of its members by reducing destructive competition, a governance institution that provided dispute resolution and rule enforcement, and a political body that allocated prestige and authority among the bosses who composed it. Its effectiveness varied over time and was never complete. But for approximately half a century, from 1931 through the early 1980s, it provided a sufficient degree of stability to allow the Five Families to accumulate the kind of institutional depth that made them, during their peak years, one of the most significant criminal organizations in the history of American society.

Research or Library Extension