The question is anachronistic. (which is why this will be another answer where I fall short of my goal of providing sources/references). On the other hand, most of this is in the wikipedia article.
The delegates to the Continental Congress honestly believed that what unified them (a belief that monarchy was not necessary and that citizens of a republic could govern themselves) was much more important than what divided them. They believed that men who "disinterested" (Gordon Wood points out that Franklin sold off all his business interests before entering public life - (the claim doesn't hold up to strict scrutiny, but Franklin and his contemporaries believed it)) would automatically seek out and advance the public good. The notion that their commitment to the public good might be contaminated by faction or party would have challenged their fundamental beliefs and probably would have been an insult.
Side-note - the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist" which we today view as quasi-party labels were almost never used at the time. To the extend that they were used, they were accusations that someone was functionalist and political. I can't cite anything specific, but I believe that Pauline Meier's History of the constitution covers this.
Having said that, the Jay treat clearly reveals the tensions of the age. Northern commercial interests were willing to yield navigation rights on the Mississippi to European interests, while Southern farming interests were horrified by the prospect. The South was deeply anti-commercial, pro-farming and pro-slavery. They were bound together by the thinnest political veneer. Washington's personal authority maintained that veneer through his Presidency, but after his departure, things began to fall apart.