I suspect the breakdown of the votes would be nays/South, yeas/north.
I don't know about that. Back in the Federal Period, there were several crosscutting boundary lines in society, socially and politically.
For instance, the Antifederalists (the Liberty Interest) tended to be upland/Piedmont "yeoman farmers", future Jeffersonians; and they were very skeptical about the Constitution, especially the infamous "General Welfare" clause, which they correctly zeroed in on as Alexander Hamilton's glory-hole of General Federal Overweening.
The Tidewater planters, the big planters with lots of money, tended to side with the commercial, shipping, and newspapering interests as Federalists. One reason was that a lot of them owned federal debt instruments which would trade sharply higher the minute the Feds got the power to bind individuals directly to pay taxes to support the federal debt. The planters were all for the Constitution.
There was even a shadow of that early parallel-to-the-coast division in U.S. politics during the 1860 election, when the really big, big-rich planters split from the Breckinridge Democrats (the "fire eaters") to form the Constitutional Union Party, which opposed secession and nominated John Bell. They were fourth in balloting; their best States were Virginia and Texas.