My friend mentioned how cool it is that Washington willingly stepped down after 8 years in power, and that made me realize that John Adams losing the election must have been another huge moment in American history. Was Washington giving up his power willingly or Adams not trying to keep power after losing the election more surprising to the American people and the world in general?
I'm a social studies teacher who taught this lesson yesterday! It is generally considered that Washington's decision to step down established the precedent of a 2-term Presidency, which Thomas Jefferson and every other two term president until FDR follows. However, the Revolution of 1800, in which power peacefully changes hands between the two political parties, was likely just as much of a shock. The entire election was contentious, not just because of the vicious campaigning being done by the Federalists and Democratic Republicans but also because the election ultimately went to the House of Representatives when the electoral vote was tied between the two Dem. Rep. candidates, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson.
If Adams hadn't stepped down, we most likely would have seen some kind of civil war break out between state militias. Both Virginia and Pennsylvania mobilize their militias when they think the house will struggle to choose between Jefferson and Burr, two candidates from the same party. So given this evidence of states being ready and willing to fight over people from the same party, they most likely would have been prepared to fight against a Federalist that they do not agree with at all.
Ultimately, both events were surprising to Americans due to the fact that no one knew what would happen in both situations. Both events set precedent for the future, and establish the peaceful protocols that govern American politics today.
TL;DR The likelihood of violence if Adams hand't stepped down was high, and both Washington and Adams stepping down were both surprising events to the American public.
Sources: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=2978 An excellent website for basic information on US history at the high school level.
I will edit with the name of the book I read in grad school on this topic after work.
Edit: The book is called American Insurgents, American Patriots. Its focus is on the Revolutionary war, but it also discusses how Revolutionary thinking contributed to the early governance of America, and it covers the election of 1800.
Followup question: Do we know what the reaction would've been if Adams hadn't stepped down? It would be unthinkable today -- I can't even imagine even the staunchest Democrat not being appalled if Obama had refused to step down, for example -- but the election of 1800 divided the country every bit as much as that of 2016, so would Adams' supporters have defended his actions as the lesser of two evils compared to letting the Democratic-Republicans govern the country?
If I could piggy back of this question, Why was 4 years the decided upon presidential term as opposed to something more substantial like 10? Even today the presidents can barely get anything accomplished in four years. I can't imagine trying to cram actual nation building into four year blocks. Especially before the ability to mass communicate beyond printed word.
Follow-up question: Considering that this established a norm, not a law until after FDR, why hasn't this norm been adopted by other democracies that formed with similar government models? I guess I'm thinking of places in Africa and South America esp. but possibly applicable to countries in SE Asia?