On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:25:04 -0600, Ruddell
> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:19:43 -0600, Chris Hughes wrote
>(in article >):
>
>
>> When I visited Austin, Texas, I was told 'If you know beans about chili,
>> you know chili don't have no beans' -- and the only recipe I have ever
>> used beans in is - Chili Con Carne.
>
>Dave's question was interesting because I had always though the con carne was
>the original? Con carne meaning 'with meat' makes sense yet I guess somehow
>it got dropped along the way with most assuming meat was one of the essential
>ingredients (along with chili pepper(s) of course). I did find that Texas
>is where the dish started and beans aren't really thought of that highly in
>it. Of course, the only think I know about Texas is that tv soap and the
>Cowboys (I'm a Bengals fan so I guess I can stop here).
>
>> But what do I know...?
>
>Oh good grief. So many questions today...


First there was straight chili. Then meat,. Someone added beans and
still called it chili because saying chili con frijoles took too long.
To clear up the confusion, chili con carne came along, erroneously,
because all (excepting vegetarian chili) had meat in it.


jim
who has some 700 chili recipes and no vegetarian before the 1960s and
none with beans before 1880.

So, if you have a provable pre-1960 vegetarian chili recipe, send it
my way. If you have a provable pre-1880 chili recipe with beans in it,
send it my way.