I think McGoldrick’s book is a fine critique of a successionist historiography. So is Morgan Edwards’ Baptist Successionism: A Critical View, though it is a bit dated. Landmarkers argue that both books are flawed. The two sides have fundamentally different approaches to the craft of history, so they tend to talk past each other.

Southern Baptists do not have a direct connection to Anabaptists, though some Southern Baptists have resonated with various Anabaptist emphases. The question about Anabaptist influence is related to the seventeenth century English Baptists.

There were virtually no Baptists in the American South until the last couple of decades of the seventeenth century. While the colonial authorities were quick to equate Baptists with Anabaptists (as can even be seen in some colonially granted local church charters), Baptists in America, as in England, went to great pains to distance themselves from the Anabaptists, likely for reasons related to both theology and self-preservation!

Thanks for the resources. Do you have any thoughts on Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History by James Edward McGoldrick?

I find it interesting that when some Southern Baptists argue for Anabaptist roots they seem to skip over “Southern Baptist” history and simply claim Anabaptist roots for “Southern Baptists” in general. As if “Southern Baptists” descended directly from Hubmaier.