David Spangler was born at Sharpsburg, Md., December 24, 1796. In 1802, the family removed to Zanesville, Ohio. Here the father established himself in trade as a black smith, and David, as his age and strength admitted, was a helper and continued at the forge and anvil for years, learning lessons of patient toil, and endurance, and self-reliance of vast advantage in later years. Subsequently, the father engaged in mercantile business and in this as in the other, David, as the eldest son, was his chief assistant. Study, however, was not neglected, and David profited diligently by his opportunities in that line, limited as they were. When twenty-five years of age, he commenced the study of law with Alex. Harper, and was admitted to practice at a term of the Supreme Court of the State, held in Cleveland in 1824. He commenced practice in Zanesville. In 1830, he was nominated for representative for Muskingum county in the legislature, and polled far more than his (Whig) party vote, though not elected. In 1832 he came to Coshocton. Professional business poured upon him from the start, and beside he soon was taking a leading part in politics. In the fall of the same year in which he came into the county, he was nominated for representative from the Twelfth (then) Congressional District, and such was the esteem and popularity in which, as a lawyer riding the circuit, that he was elected by a round majority, although the district (composed of Coshocton, Knox, Holmes, and Tuscaraway counties) had been hitherto in the hands of the opposite party. He was re-elected by the same constituency in 1834, by a still more decisive vote. Mr. Spangled was thoroughly satisfied with the political experience thus had and proclaimed his determination to give his whole attention thereafter to professional practice. In 1844, his party, then in the ascendancy in the state, nominated him, by convention assembled at Columbus, for Governor, but he declined the nomination, insisting upon his tastes for private life, and his need of attention to professional business, and the claims of his family, especially those of his two sons, then in course of education. While in Washington city in his first term as congressman he was admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, arguing a case carried up Ohio and prevailing for his client. From 1836 to 1856, in which year he died (October 18), his office and home, his neighbors and friends, received the whole of his time and attention. For some years before his death his health was far from vigorous. He was, it will be observed, about two months less than sixty years old.
His parents were members of the M. E. church, as was also the lady whom he married (December, 1829), Miss Elizabeth Grafton Etherington, of Baltimore, Md., and he was always awake to the interests of that body and exceedingly helpful to it, although never a member. In the heaviest of his business and height of his fame, he would give active aid in the Sabbath-school and in the musical department of the church.
He was initiated into the Masonic body about the time he attained his majority, and served in the capacity of Worshipful Master, Representative to Grand Lodge, of which he was S. G. Deacon, Grand Orator, and Deputy Grand Master. In 1846, the Lodge formerly established having become defunct, he, in connection with others, secured a dispensation for a new Lodge (No. 96), of which, for many years, he was W. M.
His sympathy and readiness to associate freely with the masses-his great industry and energy--and his keen insight of human nature arid ready wit were qualities giving him his place and power in public life. And with this is our present concern. He used to joke with his friends about his growth in popularity when a candidate, stating that in one township he doubled his vote -- the fact subsequently coming from him that the first time he ran he got in that township (a Democratic stronghold) one vote, and the second time two. A young lady came to his office to have him commence proceedings for " rape" After hearing the story, he said it was important he should know the case, and informed her that there was an offense called "rape," and one called " rapee," and that the latter covered the case of the mildest possible resistance. She concluded the latter was her case, as he keenly suspected from the first.
A minister of his church once undertook to deliver a learned controversial discourse, having very much to say about “the original.” Coming out of church, he quietly observed to a prominent lawyer of the place, of another faith, “That was a remarkable discourse; remarkable, sir; remarkable, sir; and especially remarkable, because neither the preacher (as he knew) nor any of his hearers had any knowledge of that original language.”



 

Source:  Historical Collections of Coshocton County Ohio 1764-1876
Author: William E Hunt, pub. 1876