Was there a term limit on the presendentiy when washington was in office?

1. The Constitution’s silence in Washington’s day

When the Constitution created the presidency in 1787 it specified a four‑year term and re‑eligibility but did not limit the number of terms a person could serve; Alexander Hamilton even argued re‑eligibility was central to the office (available sources do not mention Hamilton’s precise quote in these results, but scholars note the Constitution lacked term limits) ^{[4] [1]}. That made Washington legally eligible to run again after two terms; there was no text in the founding charter prohibiting additional service ^[4].

2. Washington’s voluntary precedent: political, not legal

George Washington declined a third term for reasons that included exhaustion, concerns about concentration of power, and a desire to distinguish republican leadership from monarchy; his decision created a durable informal rule that later presidents respected ^{[1] [5]}. That custom became an accepted political norm for more than 150 years — powerful because it was honored, not because it was written into law ^[1].

3. The norm breaks and the law is written

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election to four terms (1932–1944) broke Washington’s custom and prompted Congress to act. In the postwar period Congress proposed and the states ratified the Twenty‑Second Amendment in 1951, converting the two‑term norm into constitutional law: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice” ^{[2] [6]}. The amendment also contains a succession‑related clause that effectively caps total service at about ten years in some scenarios ^{[3] [7]}.

4. What the 22nd Amendment actually says and means

Section 1 bars election to the presidency more than twice and Section 1 plus related language prevents someone who served more than two years of another’s term from being elected more than once — together these provisions mean most people cannot be elected president more than twice, and total service is practically capped at ten years ^{[2] [3]}. The amendment applied going forward from its ratification in 1951 and included a grandfathering clause for the sitting president at the time ^[1].

5. Why the distinction between norm and law matters today

Washington’s action shows how political norms can be as consequential as written rules; norms can endure until broken, at which point formal law or new norms may follow ^[1]. The post‑Roosevelt reaction demonstrates that elite and public opinion can convert norms into constitutional limits when a breach alarms enough actors ^{[3] [2]}.

6. Competing perspectives and ongoing debates

Most historical accounts credit Washington with creating the two‑term tradition and attribute the 22nd Amendment to the reaction against Roosevelt’s four terms ^{[1] [3]}. Some commentators and politicians have opposed the amendment or proposed changes over time, and scholarly debate continues about nuances like whether the amendment bars succession in all circumstances — sources show debate exists but do not resolve every scholarly argument ^{[1] [8]}. Proposals to alter or repeal the amendment have appeared periodically in Congress ^[1].

7. Bottom line for your original question

During Washington’s presidency there was no constitutional term limit; his refusal of a third term set a political precedent that became law only in 1951 via the 22nd Amendment, which now limits presidents to two elected terms ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention any contemporaneous constitutional mechanism that forced Washington’s retirement — it was his choice and a shaping moment in American political culture ^[1].