As J. A. Leo Lemay writes in his biography of Benjamin Franklin:

"Though not so defined as twenty-first century American political parties, political alignments similar to political parties existed in the colonies."

The main difference between the pre-Revolutionary Period and the post-Revolutionary period was that the political sects before the Revolution were not uniform across all the colonies. Each colony had its own separate political circumstances, as the political issues could be quite different. That said, there was often a political faction that aligned on most issues with the Whigs back in England, and another that aligned with the Tories. However, there were also issues where the colonial political factions didn't align with either of the major English/British parties, or sometimes all the colonial political factions favored the Whigs over the Tories on an issue, or (less often) vice versa.

In New York, two political factions arose out of the aftermath of Leisler's Rebellion in 1689, which are referred to as the Leislerians and the anti-Leislerians. The Leislerians were mostly the Dutch, Germans, and the lower class rural English, while the anti-Leislerians were dominated by the merchant class and Anglicans. As the Dutch became less of a dominant political force in the colony, these were replaced by two factions often referred to as the Livingstons and the De Lanceys, after two families who were prominent on their respective sides of the aisle. The Livingstons generally were on the Whig side of British politics, while the De Lanceys were on the Tory side of British politics, and when the Revolution broke out, the De Lanceys sided with Parliament, and raised Loyalist regiments to fight for Britain, with Oliver De Lancey himself serving as a Major-General, and his nephew James De Lancey commanding his own regiments. The Livingstons became Patriots.

In Pennsylvania, the parties were initially organized around religion, with one party often being referred to as the Quaker Party and the other as the Church Party (as in the Anglican Church, i.e., the Church of England of which the King was the head). The Church Party has also been referred to as the Proprietary Party and the Quakers as the Antiproprietary Party. In general, the Quakers aligned more closely with the British Whig Party, while the Church Party aligned more closely with the British Tory Party. Colony founder William Penn was the de facto leader of the Quaker Party in the beginning, while the same Antiproprietary faction is the one whom Benjamin Franklin aligned himself with when elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1753. Here, as in New York, the two sides split over the Revolution, with the Antiproprietary Party generally becoming Patriots, while the Proprietary Party generally became Loyalists. Similar Proprietary and Anti-Proprietary political factions that became Loyalists and Patriots, respectively, emerged in Maryland.

In Massachusetts, political alignments formed out of the Boston Revolt of 1689, during which the governor had been kidnapped after Parliament and the King had revoked the charters of all the colonies north and east of Pennsylvania and attempted to put them under a single government against their will (this is the same event that provoked Leisler's Rebellion in New York). The revolt was put down and the governor released when Parliament issued a new charter, which combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into a single colony, but also restored many of their rights under their original charters. The political factions that then emerged are often referred to as the New Charter Party and the Old Charter Party. However, unlike in most of the other colonies, both these major political factions were generally anti-Tory and anti-Royal, while a much smaller pro-Royal third party existed simultaneously. In the aftermath of the French and Indian War, the Old Charter and New Charter men joined forces to oppose the Royalists and began talks of revolution.

Of course, George Washington didn't come from any of these colonies. He came from Virginia. And in Virginia, the emergence of political factions was rather late, despite it being the first colony founded. As Jackson Turner Main notes in Political Parties before the Constitution:

"...[T]he [Virginia] colony's politics concentrated on the House of Burgesses's successful struggle for autonomy and the westward advance against French and Indians. Internally, Virginia gives the appearance of unity: the Burgesses certainly contained no disruptive elements or basic divisions until a few years before Independence. The reason, as is well known, lay in the unchallenged dominance of the planter elite, who...remained unified by a community of interest and ideas, and the governor never became strong enough to consistently drive a wedge into this solid front. Far from producing parties, Virginia scarcely produced factions.

"To some extent this serene uniformity changed after 1760 because of the Two Penny Act and the rise of Henry, the Robinson affair, which called into question the honesty of the elite, and the division of opinion concerning the resistance to England. These events set the stage for the postwar divisions that culminated in the 1790s."

Less glowingly, the situation in Virginia could be characterized as the wealthy planter class being successful in keeping their political foes out of the legislature, and thus dissent was minimal. They were successful in doing so because, while they mostly advocated for their own set of political interests, they would willingly moderate themselves so as to keep competing political factions from ever gaining traction. So, unlike in New York or Pennsylvania or Maryland, where there were distinct pro-Tory and pro-Whig factions, in Virginia, the House of Burgesses was dominated by a force that was Whig in its determination to get self-rule to govern Virginia's affairs, but was moderately Tory on many other issues, generally more sympathetic to the crown than were the politics of New England and the North. But this finally began to break down in the late stages of the French and Indian War, as Parliament began to interfere with colonial politics, and when push came to shove, the Burgesses began to coalesce into Whig/Patriot and Tory/Loyalist wings. Washington would find himself on the Whig/Patriot side of the political spectrum.

South Carolina's politics were much the same as Virginia's. North Carolina "produced violence rather than parties" and "contained several political forces", according to Main. Georgia and New Hampshire were rather small, and had not yet produced successful opposition to royally-appointed governors. Connecticut and Rhode Island had mostly pro-Whig sentiments that broke out into factions not terribly different from Massachusetts. New Jersey was more uniform, in the manner of Virginia and South Carolina, but was somewhat like New York, except with a more Tory bent. In Delaware, Main characterizes the political factions as the rural "Localists" and the urban "Cosmopolitans".

As you might guess, a lot of these factions broke down, or at least re-organized, in the lead up to the Revolutionary War. In all the colonies, pro-Congress (a.k.a. "Whigs" or "Patriots") and pro-Parliament (a.k.a. "Tories", "Loyalists", or "Royalists") factions emerged and made up the two sides, while many others tried to stay out of the conflict completely and remain neutral.

After the war was over, the Loyalist political faction was marginalized, as the Patriots had won the war. The most public Loyalists had not only spoken out against the Patriots, but had fought the war against them, and so were forced to leave the country for Britain, Canada, Florida, or the Caribbean. Those that remained had no hope for a continued political career. Thus, the Patriots dominated American politics in the post-war era, and as the Constitution was being written, these Whigs began to split into competing political factions: the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists, the latter who often called themselves the "Republicans" though we often refer to them now as the "Democratic-Republicans" because they're different from the modern Republican Party.

George Washington led his presidency as a partisan in favor of the Federalist wing of American politics. However, having come up in the Virginia political system, he generally governed as a moderate. Still, like most other Virginians, when it came time for choosing in the lead-up to the war, he had made a political choice and sided with the Whigs, so he was not unaware of American political factions, nor above taking sides.

Still, Washington's belief was that rigid party structures were not conducive to good government, which is why he made his famous warning against the formation of political parties in his Farewell Address. But he was not speaking as someone who had recently seen political parties form for the first time. He was speaking as someone who had experienced them for some thirty-plus years, at least, in Virginia, and was well aware of the quite sharp political divisions in many of the other colonies that had been going on for a century or more. Washington's warning was in all likelihood sincere, but it was not as someone predicting the future, but someone who had seen what political rancor had produced in America in the past, and he was trying to head it off. It didn't work, but there was little hope that it ever would: given the political party history of the individual colonies, once the Thirteen Colonies had united under a single government, it was almost inevitable that new political divisions would arise, just as they had in the past, which was in keeping with the long history of political divisions in British Parliament that the colonial governments had been based upon in the first place.

(...cont'd...)

DID they actually fear the rise of political parties? And if they did do the political parties they fear resemble the political parties of today or were the feared ones more like various armed factions we see in other countries?

I know Washington is quoted about not liking political parties but the other founding fathers were mostly also the leaders of the first parties themselves.