Something interesting I thought about this time period. If you look at the time frame within the Bonanno Family, I think Joe had genuine intentions on "retiring" around the late 50s because he would have Galante as the Boss in New York but he got sent to prison. It was always his intention to choose the next regime in his family. But only person in New York who understood the power in a peaceful transition was Tommy Lucchese, The puppetmaster.

The old Genovese family had too many volatile powerhouse's for things to be peaceful. The Gambinos were two bloodline families involved with a dangerous gang leader. These two always had problems. The Colombos were a bunch of street gangs from the same place ran by a bloodline family from Sicily, similar dynamic in the Bonannos. The only boss who prospered by achieving peaceful/organized transfer of regime was Tom Gagliano to Tommy Lucchese. Lucchese had to prevent both Joe Profaci and Joe Bonanno from this. I think it was always Joe's intention to hold on to power long enough to get Galante back into the equation. I even think that Bill Bonanno would've been a proxy until Galante was released from Prison. All roads lead to preventing Bonanno and Gaante from having power in the future because neither could be told what to do or easily with. And in the future why would the Gambinos/Luccheses care if the if Brooklyn has internal problems? More money for them. Could you imagine if Bonanno was able to choose the succeeding regime how powerful they could have been without going to war?
Certainly couldn't have been less eventful then Di Gregorio Sciacca, Evola and Rastelli . We give Bill Bonanno a lot of crap but could he really have been any worse?

Who would have been a better candidate for Bonanno's consigliere in 1964 after Tartamella?

Bill Bonanno was an informant, how much worse do you need?

Angelo Caruso turned the position down. Bonanno wanted guys blood relation in the top spots, well through the Bonventre family anyways. John Aquaro, Nick Alfonso, Giuseppe DiFilippi, Vincent Tarantola would be good contenders.

@Giacomo
And so was plenty of people who get respect in this genre (lucky Luciano, Santo Trafficante etc). They eventually got Massino (the tough street guy), so what's the difference?

Bonanno should have put Gaspare Di Gregorio in that spot, it possibly could've kept him in line long enough to die of his heart attacks. Of course you can't tell the future but IMO Bill Bonnano was a placeholder for the likes of Galante and Evola who were in the can.... If Bonanno wanted to spread some goodwill to guys who weren't necessarily apart of his clique, there was John Aquaro, Nick Alfano or Joe Zicarelli, could have been smart moves. Caruso was probably the best choice on paper but as stated, wasn't ambitious... I'm guessing since he already had Johnny Burns in a top spot, he decided against a Frank Labruzzo or Joe Notaro.

Gaspar yes...but if Natale Evola were available..that would have been a win-win....Notaro was a good choice..

Steve Magadinno wanted DiGregorio to have the consigliere spot and was upset when Bonanno put DiGregorio on the shelf for not coming in when he was called (in his autobiography, Bonanno chalks Magaddino's support of DiGregorio to the belief that he could control him in the same way he controlled Nicolo Schiro in the 1920s). DiGregorio was then put under the protection of the Commission and became their first choice to replace Bonanno. (Magaddino may have also been the chairman of the Commission at this time).
That was one of the contributing factors in Bonano falling out of favour with the Commission, along with Bonanno's expansion into Montreal and Arizona, his attempt to send Bill and 40 men to California to kill Frank DeSimone and take over the LA family, putting Magliocco up to kill Gambino and Luchese, and then not coming in when the Commission called him.

@,Chin_gigante
Magliocco came up with the plan on his own. The evidence is simple, there isn't anything linking a Gambino or Lucchese to Bonannos regime and during the Bananas war, there was hardly any fighting amongst those families. Last, joe was allowed to live and nobody IMO can make powerful enemies (in a personal fashion) and just get shelved.

Secondly, the whole thing about Bonanno not coming in, is misunderstood. There was an elaborate system of checks and balances, where two commissions members had to be a witness (along with other top guys) to corroborate the meetings occurrences. The people appointed to give this message (Angelo Bruno and Joe Zerilli) were inclined to not get deeply involved and didn't give Bonanno proper notice so he refused to come in because he thought it was a trap. Also considering he had little respect for Gambino, he "gave them the finger" ..... Its very understated how his legal problems play such a big roll in his fall from power.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on both of those areas.

First of all, in regards to the plot to kill Gambino and Luchese, we have this taped conversation between Sam DeCavalcante and Joseph LaSelva about Bonanno:

SD: He put Magliocco up to do a lot of things... Like kill Carl.
JS: Well, Magliocco was his son's father-in-law.
SD: He put him up to kill Carl and Tommy Brown.
JS: Well that must have something to do with Profaci's outfit?
SD: Yeah. Now they feel that he poisoned Magliocco. Magliocco didn't die a natural death. Because the only one who could accuse him was Magliocco. See Magliocco confessed to it. But this Joe didn't know how far he went. Understand? So they suspect he used a pill on him - that he's noted for it. So he knows the truth of all the damage he done. But they feel he don't know how much the other people know. He'd come in and deny everything but he knows he couldn't deny he made people when the books were closed.

While I don't believe that Bonanno had Magliocco killed, DeCavalcante certainly talks about Bonanno's involvement with confidence. Magaddino was also caught on tape around this time talking about how Magliocco had confessed to the plot and that Bonanno was possibly involved in it, though one can argue that Magaddino was biased against Bonanno. DeCavalcante, on the other hand, was an advocate for Bonanno and tried hard to settle the situation peacefully. He and Joe Zicarelli were later criticised for advocating on Bonanno's behalf when it became clear that the whole thing would have been easier if he was just killed when the trouble started. DeCavalcante in fact wanted to continue mediating the Bonanno situation until Jerry Catena told him to leave it and divorce himself from the situation. DeCavalcante also had a direct link to Gambino - it was Gambino who personally told him of the Commission's edict to ostracise the entire Bonanno family until Bonanno was removed as boss, John Morales was removed as underboss and Bill Bonanno was removed as consigliere.
I don't trust the denials found in the Bonannos' autobiographies because they were so clearly revisionist and self-serving. That also links to my next point about the 'misunderstanding'.

Bonanno claims he did not go in because he no longer recognised the Commission as an official body because it had not been ratified by vote again at the last general meeting. But what is also obvious is that he is the only member who felt this way and it coincided with Bonanno's more individualistic attempts to branch out into Montreal, Arizona and California (and also in reading his book one gets the clear impression that Bonanno felt he was above everyone else at that time). His legal problems (such as when he was detained in Montreal) did contribute to his not appearing before the Commission but he still had plenty of opportunities to do so. I agree that Bruno and Zerilli messed matters up a bit as all they were instructed to do was to go with DeCavalcante to issue a summons and not tell Bonanno why he was wanted. That led to him only communicating through DeCavalcante, but even that ended poorly when he angrily accused DeCavalcante over the phone of being dishonourable, which led to discussion that Bonanno was becoming unhinged. Bonanno eventually said the Commission should come to him if they wanted to see him and the Commission refused to do so, considering the offences he was accused of and the fact that he had refused multiple summonses through various messengers. It wasn't a misunderstanding as much as it was Bonanno being evasive and obtuse for months.

Most of us have the same information and its subject to interpretation. I accept your opinion eventhough I disagree with some of it. (I am obviously a Joe Bonanno "guy" and I don't look to make him the "villain of the narrative" like most people do but I am not bias, I have my critiques as well)
1.) All due respect but I'm not gonna take the wiretap of the Jersey Boys with a grain of salt. Sam The Plumber was not the best source of what was going on in NY. And I could argue that NONE of the NY bosses words could be taken for "truth" during this time.

Many people love to discredit Joe's book for one reason or another (and I agree there is B.S. in it but it is a reference) but I am inclined to accept the words of an original Commission member on how it operated...... I believe that what brought the Families peace was Autonomy. Everything point to that from 31' until the late 50s. That was the strength for guys like Bonanno and Profaci, who had smaller clans then the Luciano and Mangano groups. It wasn't until they started setting a Precedent for being involved in inner-family
Decisions (namely the Anastasia Fallout), that the Commission even considered it. Bonanno was planning naming the new regime, which still would involve him to a certain extent and that from a influence and financial extent, would cause problems for the other Families, particularly pertaining to drugs. When Tom Gagliano made Tommy Luchesse Boss, it was excepted without question (you could argue that, it was on the strength of Tommy Brown) but it proves my point that, the Commission had no authority (in Bonannos mind) to make certain request of him. Bonanno was going by the old guidelines and in the course of some mishaps and the meetings become less frequent, ideas changed and the Commission (a committee of peace) became side alliances used to undermine and usurp rivals.

I leave it with this, during that whole period after the story came out, why not more bloodshed amongst the Gambinos/Luchesse and Bonanno? Another thing, why not more strife with the Joe Colombos new regime? And last but not least, I find it had to believe that a guy who spared a traitor(Di Gregorio) would be so bloodthirsty.

Its was big problem for Joe B. To have national reach and international ties to pass on a strong Family to Carmine Galante, Paul Sciacca, Rusty or whomever and still be involved.Thats a huge problem for the other Families. Who does it benefit if both the families that control Brooklyn are screwed up?

My two cents is that both groups were in the wrong. Bonanno was "planting flags all over the world" and trying to be top boss, but Gambino/Lucchese were taking advantage of the situation and trying to gain more power themselves. We're talking about a bunch of ruthless criminals here.

In this great rant by Tommy Eboli, he seems to think Gambino/Lucchese are setting Bonanno up to look bad.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=94973&search=%22philip_lombardo%22#relPageId=2&tab=page

@MightyDR
I agree both sides instigated the situation in one form or another. It is my opinion (generally as a purist in any regard) I have to go off what I believe the original intentions of creating the Commission, and especially because Luchesse was the only NY boss to benefit from a peaceful transition of power, that he orchestrated alot of this ( and it is apart of the life) this scenario with the jealous Magaddino. The Commission should not have been involved in the Magliocco situation (which precipitated this) or Bonanno either (although they helped create some of the problem in Brooklyn behind the scenes). Only Magaddino had a legit beef over the Canada territory, the others in NY just took advantage.

Joe B had every right to expand his realm especially since they were generally open towns. As far as California, it didn't directly affect NY and they also stuck their noses on other Families business for Gain (i.e. Don Carlo helping Angelo Bruno become Boss).

It also proves the point of autonomy because Joe Bonanno would not cooperate with the other Families against his own interests and after his removal, the Commission didn't welcome the New Bonanno Family in the mix (unions, construction etc). Because when they lost Joe B., they lost the majority of the legit businesses, few unions and political/international connections he brought to the table. Thats why I say it was really the rebel side (Sciacca, Rastelli) that lost as much as they gained. They were fighting to get out from under Joe B's greed and "ambition" and ended up subjected to the greed and ambitions of other Families.