But does it not seem more likely that his unwillingness to convert the Presidency into a life office, and so to give the critics of the American experiment a valid cause for opposition, led him to establish the precedent that two terms were enough?
More than once in the century and a quarter since he retired in 1797, over-ambitious Presidents have schemed to win a third election and flattering sycophants have encouraged them to believe that they could attain it.
But before they came to the test Washington's example--"no more than two"-- has blocked their advance.

In this respect also we must admit that he looked far into the future and saw what would be best for posterity.

The second term as it has proved is bad enough, diverting a President during his first term to devote much of his energy and attention to setting traps to secure the second.

It might be better to have only one term to last six years, instead of four, which would enable a President to give all his time to the duties of his office, instead of giving a large part of it to the chase after a reelection.
As soon as Washington determined irrevocably to retire, he began thinking of the "Farewell Address" which he desired to deliver to his countrymen as the best legacy he could bequeath.

Several years before he had talked it over with Madison, with whom he was then on very friendly terms, and Madison had drafted a good deal of it.