This is incorrect. Apostolic Succession and Historic Episcopate are two different things. Historic Episcopate is the unbroken episcopal succession going back to the Apostles. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Communion and some Lutheran national churches can claim and prove such episcopal succession: each bishop was consecrated by a bishops who consecrated by a bishop, etc all the way back to the Apostles.
Apostolic Succession is adherence to the Apostolic Faith. That means obedience to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord Himself. Any minister, pastor, bishop, etc who adheres to the Apostolic Faith in his teachings and manners is in Apostolic Succession. It matters not who consecrated him.
What does this mean? It means that Gene Robinson is in the Historic Episcopate but not in Apostolic Succession. It means that Billy Graham is not in the Historic Episcopate but is in Apostolic Succession. It means that the Roman bishops who shuffled known pedophiles from one parish to another are not in Apostolic Succession.
Personally, I do not begrudge the Bishop of Rome, nor the Roman Catholic Church for this. I do find the position of the RC Church with regards to its relationship with the rest of the Church, mildly interesting, at the least.
On several theological instances, the teaching of Baptist pastors contradicts the teachings of the Apostles. For example, the Baptist doctrines of formal sufficiency of the (truncated by Luther) Bible for salvation, or salvation by faith alone, or slavation by personal relationship with Christ without mediation of the properly consecrated Church were not taught by the Apostles, and in fact something diffirent was taught.