So, I see it as more property rights (with slaves being the property) than a moral issue. We have read enough on this one subject to understand not everyone on the other side of the Mason-Dixon was opposed to horses or slaves. They were just more willing to give up their right of ownership than most below the line. After it was all said n done, no one could use a horse. Now they had some big problems. Horses roaming around with nothing to do. No horse to work in the fields. I guess some may have had some greenbacks and paid horses but then again, some had to let them have a spot and a crop of their own to get the help they needed. Sort of like spreading the wealth. Hmm, seems we've heard that somewhere in more recent times. Scary idea.
The real sad part of the entire deal is that not too long after the war, there were many things on the market that aided those who needed many slaves before. There would be less demand for that commodity.
I can tell you that there would be another war if someone came along and told women they could not have a washer and a dryer. There would be all sorts of stuff flying through the air. We have the 'right' to have them. We have earned the 'right' to use them and we will not accept anyone telling us we can't. They are our 'property'. Don't mess with it or we will hurt you.
I'm starting to really see what my ancestors saw and I can also see why it didn't set well with them.