Whether or not the Journal publishes this letter, I have posted it in the "Comment" section about the article in the On-Line edition of the paper.
"Letters to the Editor"
The Wall Street Journal
Dear Sirs:
You say, "Texans are known for their thick, beefy version [of chili] with no beans and definitely no tomatoes."
This is not well researched. There is an intense dispute in Texas about beans in chili. Also, while I cannot say that I've seen tomatoes in the chili at the Texas Chili Parlor in Austin, I've never heard of any particular objection to them. Tomatoes are a New World plant, like chiles -- Europeans originally thought they were poisonous.
The "chili" in Cincinnati is actually a Macedonian meat stew, with Middle Eastern spices, like cinnamon, which are featured in no Texas chili I've ever heard of. And I've never seen chili on spaghetti in Texas. Chili on rice, now that's Hawaiian. See you at Zippy's.
While Texas chili usually has chili powder and no actual chilis, that is not its origin. In New Mexico today "chili" often means a stew of actual chiles with no meat, or beans. That is the original dish, which became chile con carne in San Antonio. Forgetting the "con carne" part distorts the history. And don't think that bell peppers are good enough: Europeans bred those not to be hot. No Texan, or Mexican, could but fail to laugh at that.
Some corrections are in order.
Yours truly,
Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.