It may be trace amounts or around 1%, but it will show.
Those from south of the border are, of course, going to show a lot more not only because they had an extra century or so to mix with the local natives, but because there was less stigma associated with it.
Still, you have the combination of too many men on the frontier and many native chieftains who wanted to marry daughters into this class because our European ancestors had, among other things, useful tools including advanced weaponry which could and did give local tribes an edge over their rivals.
Plus (and I don't know how to put this delicately) men are far less selective about the women they mate with than vice versa. This is true whether it be a slave woman enticing the master (or son) in his house or a pretty native girl wanting to make a great trade deal for her father.
Not in mine, not even the line that was in Michigan when it was Quebec the 1600s. Not those that landed at Martha’s Vineyard in 1640. Not a drop. Of course if DNA was around for several times back greats, maybe it would have shown up. There is no family lore for Native American.
Husband has a line from the Mohawk Valley. Nat Foster was an uncle. Not a drop there either. He and many of his cousins from the other side have high cheek bones. None there either. Both sides to back in the USA to the 1700s and before.
Fauxcahontas is full of it if she does not do a DNA on her own.
Lieawatha Warren used her supposed Native American Ancestry to procure a $300,000 a Year Teaching Job at Harvard.
If she has no Indian DNA, she should return every penny she was paid by Harvard.
If she has a 64th of Native American DNA or 1/32nd (two numbers I heard she claimed), she should refund Harvard nearly every penny she was paid, except for the percentage shown on the DNA Test of course.