in 1957 the biggest mob meet in u.s. history was recorded in appalachin n.y. I believe over 60 bosses were arrested. its been 57 years ago this November. who called this meet? what was so urgent that every boss of every family made an appearance? it has even been said that meyer lansky and frank Costello tipped off the cops about the meet. as they were not in attendance. what was the catalyst that drew them alltogether in the biggest meet ever?

Binnie_Coll, use the search button.

It was called by Vito Genovese, but also was called by Tommy Lucchese who remained silent and let Genovese call the shots. Joe Barbara house was picked by Stefano Magaddino, where the commission meeting was held a year earlier, the appalachin meet was not a commission meeting, but was something entirely different. After it was raided, the bosses around the country blamed both Genovese and Magaddino for the foul up, Magaddino even had an attempt made on his life after that.

im in the dark as to the true reason for the meet. theres a new book out and the author dispells a lot of the myths.

Supposedly to talk about Anastasia's territory, their drug operations and Genovese wanting to be boss of bosses.

do you think that could be the reason for every boss of every family to attend? they came from everywhere.

Binnie, I think at that time the drug operations were paramount to the families and Genovese wanting to take complete control would certainly be a draw for the other bosses. Just my 2 cents.

Being as Vito Genovese was at the center of it, it certainly looks like it concerned drugs, didn't it.

A law was passed the prior year, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.

Here is a partial synopsis of it...

" Narcotic Control Act

Jennifer M. Cameron & Ronna J. Dillinger

The Narcotic Control Act was passed in 1956 in response to the results of a nationwide investigation of narcotics trafficking, addiction, and treatment. The act imposed some of the strictest drug control penalties to date, and was supported by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) as a means of reducing narcotics trafficking and use in the United States. The act increased the penalties and mandatory minimum prison sentences outlined by the Boggs Act of 1951 and introduced the death penalty for certain drug offenses. The mandatory minimum sentences imposed by the act were later eliminated by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Boggs Act established strict criminal penalties (including mandatory minimum prison sentences) for those who violated the existing laws related to narcotics trafficking and use. Shortly after the Boggs Act passed, Harry Anslinger of the FBN reported a sharp decline in narcotic use by ... "

Source Page

Therefore, whether Anastasia was hit or not, whether Vito Genovese would have assumed power or not, an Appalachin would have probably gone down anyway...to discuss ways to circumnavigate the new draconian anti drug laws.

great information alfa, ive always suspected there was a lot more to it than most people thought at the time. new book just came out covering the meet. " mafia summit" going to get it. it covers a lot of reasons for the meet. thank you for a new take on the meet.

Don´t bother with "Mafia Summit". Save your money.

There were two major issues on the agenda that needed to be addressed to all bosses face to face.

- The violence lately in New York. For stability and tranquility, there was a serious need to inform all bosses why Costello had been shot and why Anastasia had been killed.

- The other major issue was the banning of drugs, across the board. In reality though, this ban never worked because many soldiers and captains on the street level were looking to quickly enrich themselves, especially the ones who had recently been made.

No one was crowned the boss of bosses at the meeting. Neither was anybody supposed to be crowned the boss of bosses at the meeting. "Mafia Summit" claims that Vito Genovese was supposed to be crowned boss of bosses but that´s big bullshit.

Meyer Lansky was not a member of LCN. So there was no way he would be allowed to participate in the meeting. Frank Costello was out. At that time, he was just a soldier with no power.

What about the book "Mafia at Apalachin" by Michael Newton? Is it good?

I haven´t read that one so I don´t know. But my guess would be that the book is filled with same old "bullshit facts" now anybody can find on MafiaWiki, mixed with author´s assumptions of what happened that day. These kind of books doesn´t present new facts and are not books that will stray away too much from what the general reader wants to read about. They are all mainstream and middle of the road. They have to be, if the author/publishers wants to make any money out of them. They won´t sell otherwise.

thank you hk, it was of interest to me because of the fact of the participation of all bosses. I never believed Genovese was crowned boss either. what about the rumors that lansky and Costello told the police about the meet. that's been speculated.

I've actually spent quite a bit of "face time" with Michael Genovese (Pittsburgh LCN) and I can tell you that Appalachin was never discussed.

Good post HK. You forgot to mention that they put a stop to making new members, which over the years, they did make new members in their families, but were selective of it, and the Tri-State area made a dozen or two during the time of the ban. Also, Armand Rava, a powerful Gambino capo was going to argue why Carlo Gambino should not be boss of his family. Another story is that Frank Amato Snr, boss of Pittsburgh was giving up his seat on the commission, after the fiasco between Albert Anastasia and Salvatore Giancana at the 1956 commission meeting and giving it to Joseph Ida boss of Philadelphia.

I was the first author to go through the Commission of Investigation's internal records at the New York State Archives at Albany, New York.

They have the DD5s of each of the 20 State Policemen describing how each of the Mafiosi was arrested on foot, at the roadblock on McFall Road, or stopped in their cars on the highway to Binghamton.

Based on the arrest records of Joe Bonanno, I think it's now proven that he was in fact arrested running through a cornfield at Apalachin. The DD-5 lists his Social Security number and his new Arizona address-- NOT his New York address where he supposedly had Bonventre renew his license in New York State.

And the police found no hunting rifles of any kind on "Bonventre"/Bonanno -- a major hole in Bonanno's "just went hunting" story.

If you want a serious book that covers Apalachin in detail-- using the primary sources of the police and FBI-- check out The Mob and the City: The Hidden History of How the Mafia Captured New York.

It's the only book which has a comprehensive list of the 72 provable attendees AND cites the sources for each of the attendees. No bullshit: it's based on the actual investigative records that no one bothered to ever dig up at Albany.

"The other major issue was the banning of drugs, across the board."

There's just no good evidence for this myth. The Joe/Bill Bonanno team claim that if the State Police just hadn't disrupted Apalachin, they would have banned drugs. How convenient! It's just self-serving bullshit about the early Mafia supposedly being against narcotics. What stopped them from banning drugs in 1958-59?

There's also good factual reasons to doubt it:

First, the 1956 Boggs-Daniel Narcotics went into effect to great fanfare in June 1957-- 3 months BEFORE the 1956 Commission meeting. Why would scores of wiseguys travel across the country all over again, less than year later, to talk about drugs again when the issue had already been in the news in the summer of 1956?

Second, contrary to what Hairy Knuckles says, it wasn't just street-level soldiers-- a lot of high-level Mafiosi were already into narcotics. Three of the Apalachin attendees were already CONVICTED narcotics traffickers: high-level caporegime John Ormento, consigliere Frank Cucchiara and boss Joseph Civello. Yet, they were all invited to Apalachin as high-level leaders.

Third, the Mafia as a whole had already taken over most of the wholesale narcotics trade starting in the mid-1930s. The Corsican connection started in the 1930s--over 20 years before Apalachin. This is confirmed by ex-dealers from that era who were interviewed in 1980 by the Columbia Oral History Center. It was done by a bunch of interviewers who found elderly dealers who had been around in that era.

Fourth, we do have one actual attendee's statements on Apalachin. In 1988, Roy Williams testified that Nick Civella (an actual attendee) had told him about the purposes of Apalachin. "Civella told me that, among other things, territory and cooperation was discussed. Civella said he had Kansas City as his territory. He had working relations with other areas. He had friends in Chicago, he had friends in Cleveland, and he had friends in New Orleans."

The Apalachin-was-to-settle-drugs myth is very cinematic (anyone notice the parallels to The Godfather drug scene?).

But the narcotics trade just didn't operate like that. The drug trade was always much more free-flowing and long-standing in the Mafia.

Not saying you are wrong, but just to clarify...the Narcotic Control Act and the Boggs Act are two different promulgations of law.

I know my English is bad but it´s not like I´m talking Swahili here. Alex, I have never said that the Mafia was not into drugs. What I said is that the Mafia, its Commission to be precise, proclaimed a national ban on drug dealing at the Apalachin meeting. This was an agreement that had been worked out at a Commission meeting two weeks prior to Apalachin. To avoid confusion, a proclamation of this magnitude needed to be addressed to all bosses face to face, eye to eye and mouth to mouth. I also said that the effort was however meaningless because a lot of soldiers and captains were not willing to abandon drug dealing due to its large revenue.

Yes, I should be more precise--let's just call it by its official name: the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 (Sen. Daniel was the chief sponsor of the 1956 amendments to the earlier statute sponsored by Cong. Boggs).

The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 was passed to great fanfare in the summer of 1956. Here's a New York Times article from July 11, 1956:

"Now that Congress has passed and sent to the President a bill drastically increasing the penalties for illegal sale and possession of narcotics-- even up to and including the death penalty--we urge that it devote equal attention to the other side of the coin: medical treatment and rehabilitation procedures."

Now, the regular Commission meeting took place in October 1956. So did the July 1956 Act somehow slips their minds before the October 1956 Commission meeting?

Remember, it's not so easy to assemble these national meeting. They had no idea they'd have to reassemble again in 1957 after the Anastasia hit.

If a ban on narcotics was so important, why did they seemingly skip it at the October 1956 Commission meeting?

alexhortis5, I set this thread in motion to some how get a sense of what it was really CALLED FOR. I just cant buy most of these reasons, you have here the biggest conclave of mafia bosses in the u.s. never before or sense has there been one as big, its wasn't to crown vito Genovese as head of all the lcn. that's ridiculous, it had nothing to do with the killing of Anastasia, or the attempt on costellos life, those were all family matters, as far as narcotics go, maybe. but I doubt it. there was something else entirely for this meet, and frankly, I don't think any one knows. especially law enforcement.

No, I understand you perfectly HK. I'm just challenging the old ban-narcotics-at-Apalachin-in-1957 myth you're recycling from Joe/Bill Bonanno.

Do you have any other source?

Why did they not ban narcotics at the October 1956 Commission meeting among the "bosses face to face, eye to eye and mouth to mouth"?

You also are shifting the blame (a la Bonanno) for the narcotics trade just to low-level "soldiers and captains were not willing to abandon drug dealing due to its large revenue."

Like I said above, three of the attendees to the 1957 Apalachin meeting were high-level leaders who were already CONVICTED narcotics traffickers: John Ormento, Frank Cucchiara, and Joseph Civello. Also present at Apalachin was Carmine "Lilo" Galante-- Bonanno's high-level capo, who at the time was perhaps the biggest importer of heroin through Montreal.

Then, we can make a long list of the bosses or future bosses who had narcotics convictions or close associates, from Charles Luciano (1916) to Natale Evloa (1959) to Anthony "Tony Ducks" Corallo (1941).

It's just a convenient myth. The Mafia was up to its eyeballs in heroin since the mid-1930s-- 20 years before this supposed grand noble meeting to ban drugs was tragically dashed by those damn police in 1957.

Binnie,

I'm just disputing the notion that the 1957 Apalachin meeting was called to impose a national ban on narcotics. HK said that with 100% confidence. I agree with you that that "reason" is dubious.

The only "source" for that story is Joe/Bill Bonnano, who wanted to perpetuate the myth that they would've stopped drugs but-for the pesky police! It's great storytelling, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

alexhortis5 - no it does not stand up to scrutiny, for a couple of reasons, one-if there was a ban it was b,s, those that dealt heroin, would certainly continue. [ including vito Genovese, who was convicted of heroin trafficking just two years later.] the meet had a special significance that escapes most everyone. including myself.

Well, what other source can I pull out of my sleeve? I wish there was a tape recording of Carlo Gambino talking about it. I wish there was an informant, someone who was actually there, who could tell us all about it. But there are no recordings and there are no informants, no matter how hard I wish. We have Bonanno with inside knowledge about the meeting. Who else (or what else) do we have apart from LE speculations and rumors?

Some bosses allowed drug dealing in their Families. Luciano may have been one of them. Some others didn´t. Some captains were into drug dealing, others weren´t. But just because some captains were into it, it doesn´t automatically mean that their bosses knew/allowed them to be dealing. You mentioned Ormento. Who´s to say what his boss Tommy Lucchese thought about Ormento dealing? Can you honestly say that Lucchese perfectly knew about Ormento dealing? Can you honestly say that Bonanno knew about Galante dealing, without a doubt?

The Oct 1956 meeting was not a national meeting but a Commission meeting. So obviously a face to face pass on of orders to all the bosses was impossible. Instead this was achieved (or it was tried to be achieved) a year later at Apalachin.

Generally speaking Alex, don´t you think the bosses would rather have their soldiers, captains (whatever) NOT dealing in drugs than have them dealing?

hk, yes, definitly bonnano knew about galente, he took the money for years, went to sicily to set up heroin pipelines with Sicilians. and luchesse knew too. they all knew. and a drug ban. no way. with Genovese? what kind of an example was he? but, you are right, no one knows what went on. except it was a colossal gathering. that's all!

Complicating matters is the fact that the meeting really never got on. It was interrupted. Therefore we are speculating not on what was discussed, but what would have been discussed. Honestly, even the attendees probably weren't completely clear about what information they would be exposed to.

I remained convinced that the meeting had a great deal to do with narcotics, for many reasons, including the type of gangsters present at the meeting and where they came from. Not only was Carmine Galante there, but also a contingent from Canada (Carmine Galante's Heroin pipeline) and Italy (the Sicilian Heroin pipeline).

Why weren't drugs discussed at the 1956 meet? Maybe all of the parties concerned with trafficking couldn't make the first meeting? Maybe they needed a few months to read and analyze the law before they called a meeting for it in 1957?

Well, instead of just believing everything Joe/Bill Bonanno tell you in self-serving memoirs, you can use facts and logic, too.



Yes, I can: By 1952, John Ormento had THREE federal narcotics convictions. Are you telling be that Tommy Lucchese was unaware that his high-level capo was a three-time convicted narcotics trafficker?

The Lucchese Family was running the biggest heroin wholesale distribution center in America based out of 107th Street and clandestine labs around New York City.

Are you saying Tommy Lucchese has no clue what his capos were doing, and where all this money is coming from? Give me a break.



Even Joe Bonanno doesn't say that they postponed a drug ban in 1956 in order to meet "face to face" in 1957. I don't know where you're getting this now?

This is really weak logic, too. Why didn't the Commission at least issue a national edict in 1956? Why didn't the New York bosses present agree to ban drugs among the New York Families at the 1956 Commission meeting?




No, I do not think that the bosses wanted to give up narcotics given the enormous profit$ they were making. From the 1930s through the early 1970s, Cosa Nostra was importing roughly 80% of the high-grade heroin into this country. It was always about the money.

I don't mean to give you a hard time HK.

I DO agree with you that they weren't about to make Vito Genovese "boss of bosses" like Reavill claims. That issue was settled in 1931.

And the story about Meyer Lanksy and Frank Costello tipping off the police is bunk. Lansky was never going to be invited to a Commission meeting, and Costello was quasi-retired.

Besides, if the State Police were tipped off, why was the round-up so haphazard? (Even Mafia Summit manages to get that right). If the Staties knew in advance, they could've put down a dragnet and caught every single one of them.

I'm also influenced by seeing the old DD5s at the New York State Archives. The individual police put together each of their own DD5s within 24 hours of the round-up. They have the typical mistakes and typos you'd expect from something spontaneous. Apalachin was a surprise.

How can I disregard the words of a mobster, and go solely with an FBI report that came from under the corrupt jurisdiction of J Edgar Hoover who denied the mafia even existed.

I really hate the idea of history being written by Hoover. I can't stress it enough.

If you were an agent working under Hoover's FBI, how could you even write a report that would go against his narrative?

"Well, instead of just believing everything Joe/Bill Bonanno tell you in self-serving memoirs, you can use facts and logic, too."

- Alex, that is what I do. I use facts and logic.

"Even Joe Bonanno doesn't say that they postponed a drug ban in 1956 in order to meet "face to face" in 1957. I don't know where you're getting this now?

This is really weak logic, too. Why didn't the Commission at least issue a national edict in 1956? Why didn't the New York bosses present agree to ban drugs among the New York Families at the 1956 Commission meeting?"

- To my knowledge, banning of drug involvement was not on the agenda at the Oct 1956 Commission meeting. it was never my intention to make you believe it was.

We are going round and round with this without getting nowhere. I know why you are doing this and I´m not going to help you doing this. Let´s just agree to disagree. But it´s funny though...I think there must be over one hundred references and quotes where you use Bonanno as a source in your book. To me, that´s kinda remarkable considering Bonanno is just a "self serving, bull shit coin artist".