The family traveled west after the war, but when King was four years old, his father was killed and scalped by Native Americans near Marietta, Ohio.

[2] King's economic success in the art world, particularly in the field of portraiture, was in part dependent on his ability to socialize with the wealthy celebrities, and relate to the well-educated politicians of the time: "His industry and simple habits enabled him to acquire a handsome competence, and his amiable and exemplary character won him many friends".

Though King's legacy lies in his portraiture, throughout his career he also demonstrated a great technical skill in still life, genre, and literary paintings.

The 16th and 17th-century style attributed to masters in Northern Europe, especially that of the Dutch and Flemish, was quite popular in the upper echelons of the art culture.

As noted above, King incorporated the techniques of Dutch painting into his portraits, though he recognized that the United States was not yet as familiar with "references to the style as it would be in the sphere of "post-Civil War materialism…[3]".

King was especially influenced by the Dutch tradition of trompe l'oeil, a technique that resulted in illusions capable of deceiving the viewer.

"The arrival of Charles Bird King on the Washington scene inspired the imaginative McKenney to add portraits to his archives.

"[9] King painted the subjects in his own studio, as McKenney easily obtained the consent for the portraits from Native American leaders coming to Washington to do business with the US through his new department.

The portraits gained widespread publicity beyond Washington during this period as McKenney broadened his project by publishing a book on Native Americans.

[9] The project featured the many portraits of Native Americans, mostly King's, in lithograph form, accompanied by an essay by the author James Hall.One of King's most renowned pieces in the project, Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees, focused on different Native American subjects.

The artwork has been described as a "profound study of Indian character," a magnificent image of a "newly discovered and exotic race," and is composed of a "felicitous amalgam of the real and the ideal.

King has seemingly "sacrificed their individuality, creating a facial composite that he hoped would draw a sympathetic response from a white audience.

"[12] King, these scholars suggest, structured his piece around the interests of his audience rather than portraying a true account of Native American tribes.

Although King's work was widely appreciated, his portrayals of Native American subjects and still life paintings also received criticism.

In some cases, King's portrayal of Native American men as "muscular" and having "large stature" has been seen as conforming to the stereotype of the "noble savage.

[12] Some art historians continue to critique the accuracy of the cultural elements that King put into his Native American portraits.

Some art historians have argued that the Native American tribal leader being depicted in King's artwork has been "radically decontextualized" and has been painted in such a way that emphasizes a "viewer's cultural superiority.

This particular piece has been praised for its representation of "ethnographic elements in its true sense" and is said to have portrayed an "accurate record of a Sauk or Fox chief.