Page 1 of 403
A desire to know one's ancestry is inherent in mankind and has the sanction of divine authority. The Jews were commanded to keep and maintain their family line of descent, and a failure in this respect was sufficient cause to exclude them from the temple service. While no obligation rests upon the present generation to preserve their family record, we have the promise of God that He will honor those who honor their ancestors, and this allegiance can be rendered no more effectively, perhaps, than in preserving their record and good name in a work of this nature.
Descendants of John Condit
Settler of Essex County, New Jersey
compiled from the source document
The Condits and Their Cousins in America
Editor - Norman I. Condit, M.D.
The Condit Family Association
Blooming Grove, New York
with additional information from other sources
Family Tree Maker input
by Beth Fay, St. Louis, MO
EDITION OF 1885
The practice of keeping a family record is supposed to be quite general, but when research is made for the purpose of tracing definitely the genealogy of one's ancestors, it is often found that such record extends only to the parents or grandparents, and in many instances is quite incomplete, and frequently copies in small books or on loose sheets of paper, thereby rendering it difficult to obtain reliable information.
In the autumn of 1880 a beginning was made to trace the descent of John Cunditt, who was said to be a resident of Newark, N.J., in 1678. At that time, at the home of Edgar M. Condit, of Condit, Ohio, the authors were shown a manuscript barely covering two pages of foolscap paper, being an abridged record of some of the early families, written in 1850 by Hon. Silas Condit, of Newark, N.J. From this nucleus researches were commenced as a matter of personal interest and information. After considerable correspondence with members of the different families, frequent requests were made for the publication of the history thus gathered, to which we reluctantly acceded, and thereupon entered more systematically into the details of the work -- the result of which is now before the reader.
The effort to produce a reliable and correct record has consumed much valuable time and study, an immense correspondence and no small amount of travel. An earnest endeavor has been made to secure the names and dates of every family of the name of Condit in this country, and none have been omitted whose addresses or place of residence could be ascertained.
Perfection in the work is not claimed, but where names are found misspelled, or errors occur in dates, such are mainly due to copying -- in some cases from second and even third parties. Where blanks occur (and fortunately there are but few for a work of this kind and size), they are partly due to inability to personally procure the required names and dates, but in most cases to a failure on the part of others to furnish the information requested.
No attempt has been made to trace the family name beyond the seas; as citizens of the United States we content ourselves with an expression of gratitude to the mother country for her production of our worthy Christian ancestor.
To preserve uniformity in the work, we have adopted the generally accepted form of spelling the name, believing that it will meet with approval. A respectable number still adhere to the name "Condict", probably with even better authority than those who spell theirs "Cundict". The reader will observe that the first two persons of the name in America used different methods of spelling, viz., "Cunditt" and "Cundict", neither of which are now in use. Those adhering to the name of "Condict" are, for the most part, descendants of Peter, of Morristown, second son [grandson -- ed.] of John, the ancestor.
The modern plan of numbering each individual of the descent, at the time of their birth, has been adopted, and it will be found convenient in tracing the further history of such descendant, as the number is preserved later on where a record is given of the marriage and family.
The course of descent is carried under six heads, corresponding to the six sons of Peter, the only married son of John, the ancestor, and in the order of their birth. For convenience, the index is also made in six parts, enabling the ready more readily to find his or her name than could be the case were there but one general index.
We take this occasion to acknowledge our obligations and express thanks to all who have so kindly assisted us in our researches, and hope they may find as much pleasure in the possession of this book as we have in compiling it. And we trust that some one may be found to continue to record, and possibly excel us in furnishing to the world a better and later history of the family.
REVISED RECORD, 1916
For many years members of the Condit family have gathered in annual reunion at Condit, Delaware County, Ohio. These reunions were first held at the home of Edgar M. Condit, where the first issue of the family genealogy also had its beginning.
In the summer of 1905, Aunt Jane, as she was affectionately called by all who knew her, the widow of Edgar M. Condit, visited her relatives in New Jersey and a social gathering of members of the family was held in her honor at the home of her nephew, Orlando Williams, in West Orange.
At that time it was suggested that an Association be formed, to include all the descendants of John Condit, the Ancestor, and that such reunions be held annually. The Condit Family Association was there organized and the following officers were elected: William L. Condit, President; Jotham H. Condit, First Vice-President; Ira H. Condit, Second Vice-President; Rev. Charles B. Condit, Secretary and Treasurer, with Aaron P. Condit, Edward A. Condit, Oscar H. Condit and Orlando E. Condit (deceased) members of the Executive Committee. Since its organization the Association has held an annual reunion until the present year, and has enrolled nearly four hundred members.
In 1907, when the one hundredth anniversary of the incorporation of Orange was celebrated, the Association caused a monument to be erected in the old burying ground in memory of our ancestors buried there, with the names of sixteen members of the family from Essex County, soldiers in the American Revolution, inscribed on the reverse side.
At the request of many members of the family for a revision of the record of 1885, the Executive Committee was authorized by the Association, at its meeting in 1913, to secure such a revision, and Fillmore Condit, Oscar H. Condit and Edward I. Condit were appointed a committee to superintend the matter.
Subsequently the actual work of revision was committed to Edward I. Condit, Secretary of the Association, son of Jotham H. Condit, one of the compilers of the first record.
The work of securing the data has consumed a great deal of time and has required a very extensive correspondence with relatives in all parts of the country. The interest in the work has been very encouraging and helpful. Where errors in the earlier edition were discovered they have been corrected, and the records of several lines of the family which were incomplete or did not appear at all in the first book have been brought up to date and incorporated. Others could not be extended through lack of cooperation on the part of members of the families.
There are some families in this country who spell their name "Conduitt" and claim descent from Fielding Conduitt, who was born in Wales about the year 1736, and who came to this country and settled in Maryland. Correspondence with members of this family shows no proof of relationship.
This revision contains about 40 per cent more data than the first record. Owing to this increase the Appendix and Supplement which appeared in the first book have been omitted.
The pictures which appear in this book were furnished in response to a general invitation issued to the family by the Committee.
In the search for material for the record, it developed that many families had become so scattered during the years that oftentimes it was impossible to obtain from individual members information about very near relatives.
The Committee earnestly hope that the records contained in this book may result in the renewal and perpetuation of family ties.
Rev. Charles B. Condit, President; Fletcher H. Condit, O.R., First Vice-President; William D. Condit, Second Vice-President; Oscar H. Condit, Historian; Edward I. Condit, Secretary and Treasurer; William L. Condit, Fillmore Condit, Orlando E. Condit (deceased), Edward A. Condit, Elmer Condit, Henry L. Condit, Frederick S. Condit, C. Brookfield Condit, William T. Bowman, Dr. Austin B. Thompson.
MUSINGS ON CONDITS(used with his permission only and not to be reproduced)
by Norman I. Condit, M.D.
CHAPTER I -- THE CONDIT SURNAME
It is quite important to understand and keep in mind that the surname of CONDIT has been spelled in various ways during the last three centuries in America, and that, in fact, the surname was originally spelled CUNDICT for the first of those centuries.
Because that name has been spelled and misspelled so many different ways in various records over the years, we have allowed ourselves to become confused by such variety. The compilers of the 1885 edition of the Genealogical Record of the Condit Family unwittingly contributed to our confusion in two ways.
On the title page of the 1885 edition (and carried over to the title page of the 1916 revision), they declared that it was the record of the "Descendants of John Cunditt", only because CUNDITT was the spelling of the name written at the end of John's will, which he signed with his mark, so it was not his hand that spelled his name on that document.
On pages 6 and 7 of their introduction to the record, they explained why they used the CONDIT spelling throughout the book in these words: "To preserve uniformity in the work, we have adopted the generally accepted form of spelling the name, believing that it will meet with approval. A respectable number still adhere to the name 'Condict', probably with even better authority than those who spell theirs differently, as we find many early wills and deeds on filed signed 'Cundict'." Thus, the compilers pointed out that early family members used the CUNDICT spelling, but then they chose to ignore the evidence, except for that brief comment.
The Rosetta Stone that reveals the correct spelling of the original surname also was ignored for two centuries. It is to be found in the original manuscript of the diary that was kept by Jemima Cundict between April, 1772, when she was seventeen years old, and about December of 1778. Fortunately, that diary was handed down, and is now kept by the New Jersey Historical Society in their document collection in Newark, New Jersey, where the pages were transcribed, then set in type and printed in a limited edition in 1930, and later reprinted during our country's Bicentennial celebration by the Jemima Cundict Chapter, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution.
The introduction that was added to the published version of Jemima's diary includes the following sentence: "The obverse of the first leaf of the record is occupied with arithmetical tables, Addition of Broken Numbers and a table of wine measure.: However, because the tables on that page did not seem to be a part of the diary, and the reverse side of the page contained a Scriptural quotation followed by nine lines of apparent gibberish, the transcribers ignored those nine lines, and the printer ignored both sides of the page, except for the last of three lines on its obverse, which seemed to read: "Jemima Condict her Book". That was used as the title of the printed version of the diary: "Jemima Condict Her Book".
Recent examination of the manuscript of the diary reveals that Jemima, in her careful and attractive school-girl script of that era, had written the same line three times, one above the other. On the second and third lines, it looks as if she may have spelled her last name "Cundict", but the transcribers read it as "Condict" both times, in the official transcript. Then the transcribers gave up on trying to read the first line, on which the letters were separated, rather than being connected in cursive script. With apologies to Jemima, for trying to convert her beautiful script into printed characters, we now provide this transcription of that first line:
J2M3M1 C59D3CT H2R B44K 19D P29
It is not surprising that a teenager would begin her diary with a message in code, intending to use that code in future passages to make it difficult for others to read her diary if they happened to pick it up. Eight lines of poetry (or actually probably of a hymn from Watts' Psalmody) on the reverse of that first page also were written in the same code, which proves easy to decipher. Jemima had substituted the number 1 through 9 for the letters a,e,i,o,u,y,t,s and n, respectively, so the decipherment of the above line shows that she had written, in her code:
Jemima Cundict Her Book and Pen
Thus, she provided absolute proof that she intended to write her last name as CUNDICT, and not as CONDICT, because she had used the number 5 instead of 4 in encoding her surname.
In her opening pages in 1772, she wrote twice about her cousin, Jotham Cundict, and in entries of March and April, 1773, mentioned three of her cousins by name, writing their surname as CUNDICT. For reasons known only to Jemima, she subsequently referred to her cousins only by their initials until the latter half of 1776, when she began to record the occurrence of a considerable number of deaths. Beginning on 4 September 1776 and extending through 18 July 1777, she recorded the deaths of three of her cousins, two uncles and both of her paternal grandparents, in all cases writing their names clearly as CONDICT, with the single exception of her cousin, Caleb CONDIT, although she had written his father's name as Samuel CONDICT only five months earlier.
From the evidence contained in Jemima's diary, as well as actual signatures of Condits before and after the time of the American Revolution, we can safely postulate that the majority of family members spelled their surname as CUNDICT before the 1770s, changing it to CONDICT and CONDIT during and after that decade.
The first two to use the name in America signed a document in 1702 as "John Cundict" and "Peter Cundict" according to a transcription of that document, of which we have not yet located the original. In 1710, John signed his will with his mark, but in 1714, Peter signed his own will, very clearly, with "Peter Cundict".
Confusion about the early spelling of the surname is really very easy to explain. Most records in which the name occurred were written by clerks, ministers, lawyers and others who did not ask how the name should be spelled, but spelled it as they heard it pronounced, or as they thought it should be spelled, according to their prior experience with similar sounding names. When it was actually written by a member of the family, it would appear as CUNDICT, but when written by others, it appeared most often as CUNDIT or CUNDITT, or as CONDIT, and sometimes as CONDUIT.
The matter of pronunciation is crucial in understanding such variations in spelling. From the evidence, it must be assumed that the second "c" in CUNDICT was seldom, if ever, pronounced, and the the "u" was pronounced more like a short "aw" sound, rather than as "uh", so that some interpreted it as a "u", but others as an "o". Also, in England then, as today, the word "conduit" and the name of the same spelling, were pronounced "condit" and not "con-doo-it" as often pronounced today in America.
Those and other variations in spelling of the surname have several practical significances.
For generations, members of the family have looked for the name CONDIT, almost exclusively, when searching indexes, ships' passenger lists, and names in other counties, in an attempt to learn the origin of the name and of their ancestors, when it might have been more profitable to consider other possible spellings.
The surname has been spelled so variously in many records, such as deeds, church and census records that a search of such records and indexes may not be considered thorough unless many possible variant spellings have been looked for during the search. Those who have examined many census records can attest to the amazing versatility and imagination employed by some census takers in recording names!
Several commercial organizations are happy to provide anyone, for a fee, with a report on the derivation of his surname (as given by that individual) and such report often is accompanied by an artist's rendition of a coat of arms once used by someone bearing that name or a closely similar name. We have copies of four coats of arms that were supplied by such organizations, and each is entirely different from the others, although each was said to represent the name CONDIT, or such alleged variations as CONDUIT, CONDUITT, CONDICT, CUNDITT, CUNDY, CUNDEY, CONDIE, CUNDIFF, CONDITOR, CONDITORS, CONDITE, CONDITT, CONDITTE and CONDITS. Those variations included almost all possible combinations of letters except CUNDICT.
An interesting exercise is to look in not only one, but several available books that describe various surnames, their variations, and their (possible) origins. The comparison provides different viewpoints and combinations of possibilities. At least one says that CONDIT means "a merchant of pickled foods". The origin of that assumption can be traced back to to the Latin verb condio, which has many meanings including: to preserve, to pickle, to spice and to embalm. (An obsolete English word, condict, was derived from the Latin word condictus, meaning talked over, agreed upon. This is mentioned here with regret, and only for the sake of thoroughness and honesty, rather than because it seems pertinent.)
An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat, 1963 edition, reports that the word conduit originally is derived from the Late Latin word conductus, meaning a defence, escort; also, a canal, conduit, though the Old French word conduit, "spelt conduict in Cotgrave." (Cotgrave's A French and English Dictionary was printed in 1660 in London, so it is contemporary with John Cundict.) Concerning the spelling and pronunciation of the same word, volume II of the modern 13-volume Oxford English Dictionary says: "the French form conduit first as "An artificial channel or pipe for the conveyance of water or other liquid: an aqueduct, a canal", and among other spellings includes condit, conduict, and cunditt.
Please note, from the above paragraph, that conduict was an accepted English word in John Cundict's time, and that "pronunciation descends from the Middle English form condit or cundit". Can anyone identify a single other word in the English language, past or present, that ends in "-ict" in which the "c" is not pronounced? (Except for the word indict, which ends in the the sound of "ite", not "it".)
Possibly an ancestor of John Cundict lived near a conduit or conduict, and derived his surname from that object, as did others who were named because they lived near a HILL, or by a LAKE. Inasmuch as the British pronunciation of conduit or conduict was (and still is) condit or cundit, it seems of little consequence whether the name were spelled Conduict or Cunduict. On the other hand, inasmuch as other families in England, Wales and Ireland spelled their names Conduit or Conduitt, (also in France, where a final "e" sometimes was added) one of John Condict's ancestors may have adopted the unique spelling in order to differentiate his from other family names, by changing the first vowel to "u", dropping the second "u" and retaining the unpronounced "c".
Of course that is sheer speculation, but it is based upon finding a single word in the English language that ended in "-ict", in which the "c" was not pronounced; and on the evidence that the surname of this family was spelled CUNDICT during the first century in America.
Because CUNDICT is such an uncommon spelling of a name in America, someday it may be found in records of the land of origin of John Cundict; or, related families even may be found living today in that land or elsewhere, still using the Cundict surname.
CHAPTER II - TRADITION, FACT AND EVIDENCE
JOHN CONDICT, of Norman descent, from Wales to America in
The above legend is inscribed on a monument in the lot of Lewis Condit, M.D., which is Lot number 290 in the burying ground of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey. The monument is still standing today (1991), although the inscription is now not fully legible.
1678, d. in Newark, 1713, leaving one son, PETER, who d. 1714,
his sons were SAMUEL, PETER, JOHN, NATH'L, PHILIP & ISAAC
PETER 2d d., Morristown, 1768; his sons were JOSEPH, NATH'L,
EBENEZAR, SILAS and PETER 3d. PETER 3d d. 1774, leaving
three sons, EDWARD, BYRAM and LEWIS
Opening his first two hand-written notebooks, which are dated in 1880, Jotham H. Condit, who was then beginning to compile the Genealogical Record of the Condit Family, 1678-1885, wrote: "Genealogy of the Condit family taken in part from an Abstract furnished Edger Condit of Delaware Co Ohio by Silas Condit of Newark NJ in the year 1850. And Suplimented by me in this (the year 1880) the 200 year from the first settlement.
"John Condit the Ancester emigrated (as is believed) from Wales to America about the year 1678 or 1680 with one son Peter and settled in Newark N. J.d he married a 2d Wife and had by her a son John who never married. John (the Ancester) died about the year 1713."
Possibly because the above inscription was published in 1885 in History of the First Presbyterian Church, Morristown, N.J., Part II, The Combined Registers, from 1742 to 1885, Jotham became emboldened to open his genealogy book, as published in 1885, with the statement: "JOHN CUNDITT is first known in this country in 1678". "John is known to be the ancestor or nearly all bearing the name of Condit or Condict in the United States. Of his ancestry nothing is certainly known. Tradition says that he came from England or Wales. If from either, it is probable that he was a native of the latter, as we learn from residents of that Province that there are those now living there bearing the name 'Conduit'."
"John Cunditt, of his son Peter, and settled at Newark, N.J., where he married, second, 'Deborah', by whom he had a son, John, who died a minor."
In the Introduction to that book, Jotham wrote: "No attempt has been made to trace the family name beyond the seas; as citizens of the United States we content ourselves with an expression of gratitude to the mother country for her production of our worthy Christian ancestor." (Over a century later, there is still no record of any organized effort having been made toward that end.)
Quite probably, the inscribed monument in the Morristown graveyard was erected by Dr. Lewis Condict, or certainly by one of his several descendants buried in that lot, who might have learned from him the tradition regarding John Cundict's land of origin and year of arrival, inasmuch as such traditions usuallydescend from father to son. Regrettably, Lewis could not have received his information in the traditional manner because his father, Peter 3rd, died when Lewis was but sixteen months old, and Peter 2nd and his wife had died six years earlier; and at that time, Lewis' oldest brother, Edward, was less than five years old, and not likely to retain such details if told him. Two years later, their mother married Daniel Tichenor, a widower with seven young children, and by her new husband she had six more children before they removed to Kentucky in 1790, fourteen years later. By that time, her Condict sons were old enough to remain behind in New Jersey, but it appears that they were reared as Tichenors, rather than as Condicts up until then.
Lewis and his descendants could be proud of their Mayflower ancestry, because their mother, who was born Anna Byram, was a great-great-great-granddaughter of both John Alden and Francis Cooke, who came to America on the Mayflower. It is noteworthy that Anna's sisters, Huldah and Abigail Byram, married Colonel Ebenezer and Hon. Silas Condict, who were brothers of Lewis' father. Ebenezer died when Lewis was four years old, so it is unlikely that Lewis felt his influence, but Silas was an outstanding citizen and large landholder in Morristown, and a member of the Continental Congress from 1781 to 1784, and it is possible that he had an influence on Lewis and his two brothers. Silas was a great-grandson of John Cundict, the Ancestor, and may have been a reservoir of the tradition concerning the latter. Admittedly, this is speculative, but it is an attempt to estimate who might have been a reliable conduit of the tradition to Lewis Condict.
Lewis Condict was a Renaissance man of many talents, as described in his biographical sketch elsewhere, and a man of great personal integrity. This discussion is not intended to impugn his reliability, but merely to examine the likely sources of his information about the family tradition, in the absence of the possibility that he received it from his father or grandfather.
Returning to the source of Jotham H. Condit's original information about the history and genealogy of the Condit family, as told in the second paragraph of this chapter, we note that he credited "Silas Condit of Newark, New Jersey." In his Introduction to the published genealogy, he described it further as "a manuscript barely covering two pages of foolscap paper, being an abridged record of some of the early families, written in 1850 by Hon. Silas Condit, of Newark, N.J."
Silas was born in Orange, N.J., but spent most of his life in Newark. He was the second oldest son of John Condit, M.D., who was another man of many talents, which included being a U.S. Congressman and later Senator, the later part of his service in the Congress overlapping with the earlier years of service there by Lewis Condict, M.D. Lewis was a Congressman from 1811 to 1817, and from 1821 to 1833, the latter time including the term served in Congress by Hon. Silas Condit, son of Dr. John. These men therefore certainly were well acquainted, although Lewis was from Morris County, and John and Silas from Essex County, and in fact, all three also served for years in the New Jersey Legislature.
There may be considerable significance in the fact that these three men were well acquainted. John was the oldest son, of the third son, of the oldest son, Samuel, of Peter Condict, of John, the Ancestor. Such a chain could be a likely one for the transmission of family tradition. On the other hand, Lewis Condict was a descendent of Peter Condict, the second son of Peter, of John, the Ancestor. If these descendants of two grandsons of the Ancestor, living in different counties, received substantially the same tradition through their separate channels, that would tend to validate the authenticity of the tradition!
But, wait. Suppose, on the other hand, that Dr. John Condit was the only source of the tradition, and naturally passed it along to his son, Silas, and either or both transmitted it to Dr. Lewis Condict. In that event, it could have been only a pipe dream of Dr. John's, needing further study and substantiation.
Although the inscription on the monument in Morristown is literally "carved in stone," the validity of its message is not as definite and immutable as those words, which were given some credence by having been published in the 1885 Condit genealogy, and again in the 1916 revision of that book -- and again on these pages. It is time to re-examine the contents of that inscription, and attempt to determine whether the information conveyed may help to lead to the truth about the land of origin and year of arrival of the Ancestor in Newark, or whether part of that information actually has discouraged the entertainment of logical alternatives. One example will illustrate the way in which the tradition could be a red herring.
The following is a quotation from Henry Whittemore's The Founders and Builders of the Oranges: About the year 1682, when half the twenty-four Proprietors were Scotch, great numbers of that race arrived and settled in New Jersey, and the historian Grahame remarks that 'American Society was enriched with a valuable accession of virtue that had been refined by adversity and piety and invigorated by persecution..'" Is it possible that John Conduit was a Scotch Presbyterian? Not if the tradition is correct in stating that he arrived in Newark in 1678, from Wales. But the Newark Church, organized in 1666 as strictly Congregational, gradually underwent a transformation, and perhaps an infiltration by Presbyterians, because the sixth regular pastor was ordained in 1719 by the Presbytery of Philadelphia, and the transformation to a Presbyterian congregation was recognized. The tradition of Presbyterianism in the Condit family was early established and long continued, but was it imported from the mother country?
Jotham H. Condit suggested that John Cundict probably came from Wales because "there are those now living there bearing the 'Conduit'. Reasons exist, however, for believing that he may have been of English extraction, as the name has honorable mention in English history." Perhaps he did not know that there also were Conduits in Dublin, Ireland, who could have been members of John's family, considering the years of their records there, and the similarity of given names, such as Nathaniel, to those of John's early descendants.
Another blind spot that has been perpetuated by adherence to tradition is that of spelling of the surname. Many Condits will search an index in a book, or a telephone book, for the name Condit, if only out of idle curiousity, and may even be curious about the name Conduit, but may not recognize or look for the name of Condict. In view of the information in the previous chapter, perhaps the search, especially in other countries, should have included, or even concentrated on, spellings similar to Cundict. And, who knows, there may be Cundicts in other countries, looking for possible relatives without even suspecting that they now spell their names Condit or Condict, or something similar?
More than one member of the Condit family has telephoned Condits and Cousins and reported: "I am going to England this summer. What should I look for?" Of course, they wanted leads toward places of possible origin of the Condit ancestor. Naturally, they were not satisfied by the answers they received, nor could they be, because if any substantive lead has been discovered, it has not been reported to Condits and Cousins. How encouraging it is to discover that there are some individuals who have the interest and opportunity to perform what would amount to original, basic, genealogical research on behalf of the entire Condit family! On the other hand, it is disappointing that such enthusiasm is dampened by an absence of guidance, by possible restrictions imposed by strict interpretations of family traditions, and/or by an absence of direction toward possible solutions. It is desirable and necessary to harness the effort and enthusiasm available! No, not to harness it, but to give it direction and encouragement!
Skeptics there will always be, who intone "Who cares," or "I'm happy with (vague) traditions." (Have such been our guides for the past century?) Let them answer honestly how they respond to the natural question of their acquaintances: "Where do you come from?" Anybody can answer, honestly, that he has many national and ethnic ancestors, and shrug off the question, which really becomes: "Where does your family name come from? From what country? Where is your ancestral seat?" Now, that anticipates quite a different, and quite a sensible and logical response, rather than a flippant one. How one responds to that question, "Where do you come from?" can be very revealing.
Page 1 of 403