Indeed, I would say that in the mob, people who belong to the same generation of actors often become allies even across different families. And their most dangerous enemies are typically from the next generation within their own family. Castellano and Gigante were of the same generation, the status quo successors of Gambino and Genovese. Costello's closet ally was to be found not among the other members of the Luciano family (post-1945), but in the person of Albert Anastasia (Mangano family). Gotti was the upstart vis-a-vis Gigante much as Genovese was the upstart vis-a-vis Costello . . . . The real question is how did Gambino and the heirs of Genovese succeed in so thoroughly "legitimizing" their rule, such that Gotti's rub-out of Castellano appeared to be a heinous departure from the "rules"?
Great post.
Welcome to the board. Very apt perspective regards the history of bosses being overthrown to the new 'norm' of that becoming the ultimate faux-par.
I'd be interested in thoughts on this.
Personally I can only attribute it to time. As Hesh Rabkin (Sopranos) said of Junior 'he can do what he wants, he's the boss, we all dance to his tune. That's the way it's always been.'
As one's primary motivation is self preservation, the transition from a continuous tumultuous family leadership to a stable one is understandable, when the stability of the times is taken into account.
Added to which Gambino, Luchesse and Bonanno were all at the TOP of their game. Gangsters amongst gangsters.
Throw in this was the mob's hey day in power, and hence money, rocking the boat, or a call for change, in that environment, and against those opponents, you see how the game played out the way it did.
So the players, the times, the power/money, the motivation and a little bit of luck were the cornerstones of the 'change' in policy.
But who the fuck knows really.
