No, no, NO
Ashton, I know you hold very little respect for religion in general, Christianity in particular, and hold Southern Baptists in one of the lower levels of your esteem, but before you go painting with your oh-so-wide brush allow me to fill in a few of the details about the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention.
It is a messy mix of unsound politics and relatively sound theological reasoning, and a generally ugly story all around.
First, about Baptists in general: historically Baptists tend to believe in the individual autonomy of each church. Even today, with the SBC trying to control it's churches, it doesn't have any official power to do so -- each church is autonomous and is not obligated to abide by whatever resolutions the SBC puts out.
Ok, so there's that. Before there was a "Southern Baptist COnvention" there was simply a Baptist Convention. The Baptist COnvention was essentially a body set up to manage donations from member churches for missionary work, to fund new missions and to pay missionaries out in the field, and to send new missionaries out into new fields, etc.
So, the Baptist Convention decides that slavery is immoral, and slaveowners do not meet the standards of high character that Paul mentions in various books (I think Timothy is the relevant one, but I can't remember offhand) so they:
1) refused to accept missions donations from churches who have slaveowners as members, and
2) refused to allow churches who have slaveowners as members to send missionaries into the field
This pissed off all the slaveowners. Which, you know, isn't something that really bothers me all that much. However, those churches brought up a very interesting point, one that is an IMPORTANT one for Baptists in general: the one about the autonomy of the individual church. This is a point that we still bring up to protest the Southern Baptist Convention's 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, when it says that women cannot be ordained as preachers -- essentially, they are making a statement that they cannot make, because they cannot speak for all Southern Baptists, they cannot speak for all Southern Baptist churches.
Screw you, quoth the "Northern Baptists," we don't have to take your money and we aren't going to. Shape up.
Now, here's the messy part -- both sides are, doctrinally speaking, on relatively sound ground. The convention was not OBLIGATED to take their money. And the southern churches were not OBLIGATED to meet their terms. So the southern churches broke away and formed the Southern Baptist Convention.
And the even messier part was, of course, that the Northern churches were trying to abolish slavery, and the richer members of the southern churches (the ones who could afford slaves) were trying to justify their enslavement of other people.
As to every Southern Baptist believing that slaves were no better than farm animals, that's about as accurate as every Southerner fighting for the Confederacy believing that Slavery was right. But, you know, it just doesn't sound as good when you acknowledge all the variables... how much SIMPLER to just write off the SBC as a bunch of inbred lunatics riding around on flatbed trucks shooting out windows on a Saturday night! I mean, everyone KNOWS that's all we do, anyway...
