Does this really put a "myth" to rest?

The New York Times had an article entitled Putting an Antebellum Myth to Rest, arguing against the statement that "a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President" from a Marriage Vow that a few Republican candidates sign.

The point of the New York Times piece seems to be that... well... slavery sucks and that slaves had very few rights. This included the lack of a right to a legally recognized marriage apparently.

it was 150 years ago, soon after the war began, that the government started to respect the dignity of slave families. Slaves did not live in independent “households”; they lived under the auspices of masters who controlled the terms of their most intimate relationships. ... Back in 1860, marriage was a civil right and a legal contract, available only to free people. ... Though slaves could not marry legally, they were allowed to do so by custom with the permission of their owners — and most did. But the wedding vows they recited promised not “until death do us part,” but “until distance” — or, as one black minister bluntly put it, “the white man” — “do us part.”

The article makes the legitimate point that slaves might be sold to an alternate owner, breaking up families, but none of this refutation includes statistics. It's those statistics that you'd need to examine to verify or dispute the claim.

I don't know what the answer is - the US Census Data shows a significant difference in household status by race, with a minority of black households being of the two-parent sort. I'm not sure what percentage of the children of slaves grew up with two parents accessible to them.

Slavery is a terrible thing. I agree. However, that's not the specific claim here. I still haven't seen a full refutation of it just as I still haven't seem evidence in support of the original claim.