Why Are You Stressing Over an “End of Line”?

Have you ever used the term “end of line” to describe a challenge in your genealogy research? I’ve often heard and used the phrase “brick wall”—that frustrating point where the trail runs cold—but I don’t recall encountering “end of line” before.

Recently, James Tanner explored this idea in his blog post, “Why Are You Stressing Over an End-of-Line?”. His perspective prompted me to think about my own research, especially the many ways my CRAWFORD line continues to challenge me.

Why My Crawford Research Is Difficult

The record doesn’t exist.
I believe my ancestor, James Crawford, owned 50 acres of land on the Marrowbone in early Kentucky. Unfortunately, I’ve never located a deed showing the purchase or sale of this land. Without that documentation, I can’t state with certainty that the James Crawford listed in the tax records is my James Crawford.

Identity issues.
Too many men named James Crawford lived in the same area during the same time period. Sorting out which record belongs to which man has been—and continues to be—a significant challenge.

Maiden name barriers.
Two of my Crawford ancestors married women with the surname SMITH, but records identifying their parents have remained elusive. It’s a reminder that sometimes, even common surnames can create uncommon obstacles.

Understanding “End of Line” Research

After reading Tanner’s post, I revisited a video he published three years ago where he explains that an “end of line” occurs when we can’t provide documentation linking a child to a parent.

In that video, he offers practical encouragement for researchers who find themselves stuck:

• Document the parent/child relationship as completely as possible.
• Search broadly—use all available genealogy websites and databases to locate records.
• Pursue descendancy research, tracing forward from earlier generations to uncover new connections.

---

James Tanner’s perspective is a good reminder that “end-of-line” frustrations often point us toward what’s missing in our documentation—and that each missing link is also an invitation to explore new avenues of research.

Tanner’s insights reminded me that these “end-of-line” moments aren’t failures—they’re signals pointing to the next step. As I continue digging into the Crawford family, I’ll keep focusing on building solid parent–child connections and exploring collateral lines. Each document found, no matter how small, moves the line just a little farther forward.