The Pueblo Revolt of 1680 against Spanish colonialism was a major factor in the propagation of horses to the Native Americans of the Great Plains. But when the Spanish returned in 1692, the Pueblo Native Americans seemed much more amicable to Spanish colonial rule than before. Why was this so?

Well, the truth is they weren't any more amicable to Spanish rule than previously. The reason it seems this way has to do with the fact that "Pueblos" is not a political term, but a cultural one. It refers to the 21 distinct communities in New Mexico and Arizona that are bound by architecture, agriculture, and history, but not necessarily by the same language and culture - the 21 Pueblos speak seven languages, from four language families. They have their own governing systems. They have a tradition of warring with each other, not to mention the Navajo, Apaches, Utes, and Comanches (their "peaceful" reputation comes from never waging war against the United States, save for a brutally repressed uprising in Taos during the Mexican-American War. The U.S. was quick to enlist Puebloan scouts and auxiliaries for campaigns against the Navajo). Think of the term "Pueblos" like the term "Europe" - there may be broad cultural, linguistic, and other similarities, but that doesn't mean they aren't quite distinct from one another.

The Pueblo Revolt succeeded because their differences were pushed aside by their desire to get rid of Spanish rule, which was tyrannical and cruel. However, once the Spanish were gone, the unifying thread of the revolt went with them and the pueblos generally returned to their old ways, which was kind of the point of the revolt in the first place. This meant that when the reconquista came in 1692, there was no unified resistance - Popé, one of the chief organizers of the 1680 revolt, was dead (we think - records in New Mexico between 1680-1692 are a little spotty, since nobody kept any. Cool fact: Popé is one of NM's two statues in the U.S. Capitol). The revolt had also not broken the drought as was promised, and removed Spanish protection against Navajo, Apache, Ute, and Comanche raids. Once the Spanish had reasserted control, there would continue to be uprisings against them, though never again on the scale of the 1680 revolt. The Spanish also adjusted their own governing style when they returned, backing off on violently suppressing Native religion, recognizing the Pueblos' land claims, and recognizing Natives' legal rights in Spanish courts.

You're correct in associating the Pueblo Revolt with the spread of horses. The short (and ever so slightly facetious) answer to "How did horses get so far?" is "They walked." But in all seriousness, a horse can really cover some ground, and the sedentary Pueblos traded the ~1,500 horses the Spanish left when they fled to their nomadic neighbors, who traded them further, and further, and by the 1800s, horse culture was firmly embedded in Great Plains and Rocky Mountain nations. It may seem overly simple (just trade networks, dude), but consider the value of a horse to someone who previously only walked - suddenly he can travel further, faster, carrying more goods and equipment; he can hunt more efficiently; he has a huge advantage over an unmounted adversary, and for raiding. Horses became a form of mobile wealth and pride to many Native cultures; it was honorable to raid for the express purpose of stealing horses. In fact, in the Crow tribe, to become a war chief, a warrior had to complete four tasks: leading a successful war party, disarming an enemy, touching an enemy without killing him, and... stealing a horse. I really only mention it to bring up the fact that a Crow named Joe Medicine Crow accomplished this during World War II, and if you've made it this far, his profile from The War is worth 9 minutes of your time (he sings the traditional war song he sang while stealing the horses!). And if the material culture of this topic is your bag, check out the Smithsonian's A Song for the Horse Nation.